BS. Most people I know with who use Windows have high-end systems (both laptops and desktops). If you want to state that people who don't want to spend a lot of money buy low-cost PCs, that is fine, but your blanket statement is worthless. So are all people who buy Mac Minis for the most part cheap?
It's common knowledge that Apple sells 90% of all PCs that are priced over $1000 - where the margins are.
People who use Windows and people who buy PC's tend for the most part to be cheap. MS is going to have trouble moving tablets at a price point that is too much for these cheap people to pay.
People who use Windows exceed 90% of the population.
I suspect that they cannot be stereotyped like that.
How about those who buy Alienware laptops? Are they cheap?
The thing that seems most relevant to me is the OS. It is listed at $90. If Microsoft is really going to get into the hardware business, needs to look at pricing differently. They need to subsidize the Surface by providing Windows to the OEM for $5-$10 license fee. They have already spent the money developing Windows 8 and the cost of doing that can be returned through sales of standard PC's to the Enterprise and consumers. They don't have to sell RT or the license on the Pro version for $90. Apple will be selling Mountain Lion for $20 and that works out to $4 per computer. If it is delivered electronically than easier still. I was looking at the retail packaging the other day with my copy of Windows Vista and it was a ridiculous in a waste of materials and design. All I wanted was the software, not some elaborately designed case for a disc. I anticipate that MS will find a way to muff this product just like they did with Windows Phone last week.
The last MS product I bought was an upgrade to XP from NT (so I could run it on Parallels). It cost me $250 for the upgrade and every reinstall, I had to install NT first (several hours tending the machine) followed by the XP upgrade (several more hours tending the machine) -- then several more hours tending the "required" update downloads and installs.
The "packaging" on the XP upgrade looked as if it were for a whale condom
We no longer have any MS products on our computers -- so the whale has become celibate.
If you're going to buy a Surface Pro for the backwards compatibility with traditional Windows software, than you need to have a keyboard, mouse/trackpad, and more power for the Intel chip. So, why not buy an ultrabook or notebook, and dispense with this kitschy click in the keyboard / kickstand contraption? I guess the MS touts are desperate to buy into this Ballmer dog and pony show.
I think that the dual-use aspect would be the reason. It functions as a tablet, if and when you want to use simple applets. But it functions as a lightweight full laptop when you want to use full versions of software.
I think that versatility is the answer you are seeking. An ultrabook will not work for quick and simple tablet apps, but the Surface Pro will do that.
The Surface is vapor at this point, so there is no way to answer any questions about it. If someone wants a Windows Tablet/laptop hybrid today they can buy a Lenovo X230t price , but at a price of around $1200-1600 for the Lenovo, the Macbook Air is better and a better buy. Windows tablets have been around for a decade and no one buys them. Why would anyone expect anything different with this new, non-existent version? Is anyone buying Ultrabooks? Why can't MSFT come up with something unique rather than just a clone of an Apple product?
Perhaps they should have called it the Vapor?
I'll bet a steak dinner that we never see this product.....ever.
There is an error here. All Surface tablets will be running Windows 8, but not all will be fully backwards compatible. I suggest the author changes the sentence to only refer to Windows 8 x86 tablets.
Only the Pro runs Windows 8. The other one runs Windows RT. It is incorrect to say that all Surface tablets will run Windows 8.
The other part of the analysis that they are leaving out, besides the investment made in apps, as all the hardware investment people have made as well. There are so many Idevice accessory you can buy on the market, not that anyone really needs most of them but it is a huge market and people have lots of this stuff. In order for them to switch they will have to give it and maybe buy a replacement product if it even exist.
If Apple replaces the 30 pin connector, as they are rumored to be planning, this factor will be moot.
In attempts to monetize the Windows 8 "ecosystem", Microsoft will launch an "app store".
This will allow users to install things called apps onto devices like the Surface.
Observers have pointed out that the Redmond WA. based software giant is taking this move in an attempt to compete with Apple's wildly popular iPad.
Speculation is that manufacturing the Surface will pose quite a challenge from a profit margin perspective. Historically, Microsoft has been content to sit back and rake in profits from licensing agreements.
---------------------------
Historically, Microsoft has hit home runs with making mice, keyboards and the Zune. That folks, is the extent of their manufacturing prowess.....and their ecosystem.
They are gonna get hit with a big bag of hurt.
Jobs was right when he said "they don't think of original ideas".
C'mon, guys - we aren't comparing apples and oranges here ... the simple fact is, the iPad is a device, the Surface will be a computer, in tablet form (at least according to MS). ...
You're not even paying attention here. What a lot of nonsense.
In the first case, you're making a wholly artificial distinction (device vs. computer), that just doesn't stand up at all. The fact is they are both computers and the same kinds of activities are accomplished on both devices. Secondly, even if you distinguish between the two classes of device (let's say one's a "PC" and one's a "Post PC"), you're missing the basic fact that the Windows Surface is both. Surface RT is the same kind of device as the iPad, Surface Pro is the same kind of device as a MacBook Air, but with a touch screen.
I think that the dual-use aspect would be the reason. It functions as a tablet, if and when you want to use simple applets. But it functions as a lightweight full laptop when you want to use full versions of software.
I think that versatility is the answer you are seeking. An ultrabook will not work for quick and simple tablet apps, but the Surface Pro will do that.
What "quick and simple tablet apps"?
At their "show and tell" announcement they couldn't even show the "NetFlix" app running. Do you really believe there will be as many Metro apps as there apps for Kindle or Android Tablets (not to mention iPads)?
The price estimate for a "surface table" as the title implies are incorrect making the entire article flawed. Microsoft is the OEM therefore why would they have to pay $90 for their own software. So add $90 of profit to each of those estimates to get a more accurate picture.
The implied cost is based on external manufacturers, not MSFT themselves. Were MS to license for free, or a significantly reduced rate, then that discount would apply.
This challenge is no different than any other sector though. Were a steel cutting business to offer welding services, they risk competing with their clients.
I think that Microsoft has no choice - the manufacturers missed out on capitalizing on the touch interface that W7 brought to the table - and Microsoft does not want Windows 8 to be in the same boat.
I fully expect to see a Kinect 2.0 camera that turns desktop PCs into "Minority Report-like" interface, and foregoing the hardware change required for touchpads and touchscreen monitors (which are less practical).
If Microsoft doesn't pay the same licensing fee for their software as do their partners, their partners will take that as an attempt to squeeze them out of the market and therefore will not be so inclined to buy the software in the first place; they'd just stick to Android. The only way to maintain the relationship with their partners is if they subject themselves to the same costs as their partners (regarding software, leaving only the build-quality and hardware components as differentiators). They can't simply absorb the cost like Apple can. They have to make it an even playing field for all their partners. Remember Microsoft is aiming for widespread adoption of its operating system. Why should any partner be willing to play ball?
If Apple replaces the 30 pin connector, as they are rumored to be planning, this factor will be moot.
True, but I suspect that Apple is moving away from connect as the way of syncing and sharing content. They appear to be going full wireless these days and over the air updates and such. Not to say the others guys will not do the same, but, again Apple had a cleaner solution and a much larger install based of products that support them. The other things Apple is not charging them a licensing to us it, unlike M$ who wants to extract every nickel. Notice how M$ was unsuccessful at luring developer away to develop games for Zune and such, it failed.
This who ecosystem is far more complicated today and something many companies are failing to understand everyday including the wall street types.
What if the price to compete with the Air? Too me, it seems the surface will compete in that market with tablet as a secondary. I, right now am torn between a new tablet or a ultrabook. At home I love the simplicity of my iPad 1st Gen but on the road I need horsepower. This may be right up my road and I see not having to own two devices which would cost me around $2000.
What 'horsepower' do you need on the road that you don't need at home!?
Unless, of course, you do no work at all at home that you do when you're on the road.....
For the low-end ARM models running Windows RT, he believes Microsoft will have to undercut the iPad on price to find any success. But in doing so, Microsoft could make it impossible for its Windows partners to compete.
Windows partners? For Surface? Kiss them all goodbye. Few if any will pay the $85 sucker price for each Windows RT license.
And those few OEMs that do pay the sucker price for Windows RT licenses will be killed off anyway. Probably very soon.
Because it's looking more and more likely that Microsoft will need to buy Nokia, or at least enough of Nokia to build Surfaces.
Simply for the cost savings. No mark-up on the hardware because they'd own the manufacturer.
It really looks like Microsoft is putting the smack down on Nokia right now, just to drop their market cap as much as possible.
Hence the scary announcement that Windows Phone 8 won't run on any existing Lumia, which did in fact drop NOK significantly.
NOK was trading at $2.50 on Wednesday the 20th. Microsoft made the announcement on the 21st, NOK immediately slid.
It's now trading at $2.20. Down 12%.
NOK Market cap is barely $8 billion now. How much lower does it need to go before you snap it up and turn it into the
Comments
It's common knowledge that Apple sells 90% of all PCs that are priced over $1000 - where the margins are.
PC users cheap out at every turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
BS. Most people I know with who use Windows have high-end systems (both laptops and desktops). If you want to state that people who don't want to spend a lot of money buy low-cost PCs, that is fine, but your blanket statement is worthless. So are all people who buy Mac Minis for the most part cheap?
It's common knowledge that Apple sells 90% of all PCs that are priced over $1000 - where the margins are.
You are in the vast minority of PC users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
People who use Windows and people who buy PC's tend for the most part to be cheap. MS is going to have trouble moving tablets at a price point that is too much for these cheap people to pay.
People who use Windows exceed 90% of the population.
I suspect that they cannot be stereotyped like that.
How about those who buy Alienware laptops? Are they cheap?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909
The thing that seems most relevant to me is the OS. It is listed at $90. If Microsoft is really going to get into the hardware business, needs to look at pricing differently. They need to subsidize the Surface by providing Windows to the OEM for $5-$10 license fee. They have already spent the money developing Windows 8 and the cost of doing that can be returned through sales of standard PC's to the Enterprise and consumers. They don't have to sell RT or the license on the Pro version for $90. Apple will be selling Mountain Lion for $20 and that works out to $4 per computer. If it is delivered electronically than easier still. I was looking at the retail packaging the other day with my copy of Windows Vista and it was a ridiculous in a waste of materials and design. All I wanted was the software, not some elaborately designed case for a disc. I anticipate that MS will find a way to muff this product just like they did with Windows Phone last week.
The last MS product I bought was an upgrade to XP from NT (so I could run it on Parallels). It cost me $250 for the upgrade and every reinstall, I had to install NT first (several hours tending the machine) followed by the XP upgrade (several more hours tending the machine) -- then several more hours tending the "required" update downloads and installs.
The "packaging" on the XP upgrade looked as if it were for a whale condom
We no longer have any MS products on our computers -- so the whale has become celibate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentx
It's common knowledge that Apple sells 90% of all PCs that are priced over $1000 - where the margins are.
PC users cheap out at every turn.
Exactly. And they're learning, from the App Store example, that software can be cheap too.
The old PC era "expensive software on cheap hardware" model won't last much longer.
Meanwhile (speaking of margins) Microsoft is trying to charge Surface OEMs $85 per copy of Windows RT.
That's probably about 50% of the total hardware cost. They can kiss that razor-thin margin goodbye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
If you're going to buy a Surface Pro for the backwards compatibility with traditional Windows software, than you need to have a keyboard, mouse/trackpad, and more power for the Intel chip. So, why not buy an ultrabook or notebook, and dispense with this kitschy click in the keyboard / kickstand contraption? I guess the MS touts are desperate to buy into this Ballmer dog and pony show.
I think that the dual-use aspect would be the reason. It functions as a tablet, if and when you want to use simple applets. But it functions as a lightweight full laptop when you want to use full versions of software.
I think that versatility is the answer you are seeking. An ultrabook will not work for quick and simple tablet apps, but the Surface Pro will do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dodel
The Surface is vapor at this point, so there is no way to answer any questions about it. If someone wants a Windows Tablet/laptop hybrid today they can buy a Lenovo X230t price , but at a price of around $1200-1600 for the Lenovo, the Macbook Air is better and a better buy. Windows tablets have been around for a decade and no one buys them. Why would anyone expect anything different with this new, non-existent version? Is anyone buying Ultrabooks? Why can't MSFT come up with something unique rather than just a clone of an Apple product?
Perhaps they should have called it the Vapor?
I'll bet a steak dinner that we never see this product.....ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasc
There is an error here. All Surface tablets will be running Windows 8, but not all will be fully backwards compatible. I suggest the author changes the sentence to only refer to Windows 8 x86 tablets.
Only the Pro runs Windows 8. The other one runs Windows RT. It is incorrect to say that all Surface tablets will run Windows 8.
All Surface Slablets will runs Windows.
Nuff said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dodel
Why would anyone expect anything different with this new, non-existent version?
Many people think that the new touch-based OS will make a big difference. XP, Vista and Windows 7 don't work well on a touch-based device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
The other part of the analysis that they are leaving out, besides the investment made in apps, as all the hardware investment people have made as well. There are so many Idevice accessory you can buy on the market, not that anyone really needs most of them but it is a huge market and people have lots of this stuff. In order for them to switch they will have to give it and maybe buy a replacement product if it even exist.
If Apple replaces the 30 pin connector, as they are rumored to be planning, this factor will be moot.
This just in....
(FAKE PRESS RELEASE)
In attempts to monetize the Windows 8 "ecosystem", Microsoft will launch an "app store".
This will allow users to install things called apps onto devices like the Surface.
Observers have pointed out that the Redmond WA. based software giant is taking this move in an attempt to compete with Apple's wildly popular iPad.
Speculation is that manufacturing the Surface will pose quite a challenge from a profit margin perspective. Historically, Microsoft has been content to sit back and rake in profits from licensing agreements.
---------------------------
Historically, Microsoft has hit home runs with making mice, keyboards and the Zune. That folks, is the extent of their manufacturing prowess.....and their ecosystem.
They are gonna get hit with a big bag of hurt.
Jobs was right when he said "they don't think of original ideas".
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
C'mon, guys - we aren't comparing apples and oranges here ... the simple fact is, the iPad is a device, the Surface will be a computer, in tablet form (at least according to MS). ...
You're not even paying attention here. What a lot of nonsense.
In the first case, you're making a wholly artificial distinction (device vs. computer), that just doesn't stand up at all. The fact is they are both computers and the same kinds of activities are accomplished on both devices. Secondly, even if you distinguish between the two classes of device (let's say one's a "PC" and one's a "Post PC"), you're missing the basic fact that the Windows Surface is both. Surface RT is the same kind of device as the iPad, Surface Pro is the same kind of device as a MacBook Air, but with a touch screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
I think that the dual-use aspect would be the reason. It functions as a tablet, if and when you want to use simple applets. But it functions as a lightweight full laptop when you want to use full versions of software.
I think that versatility is the answer you are seeking. An ultrabook will not work for quick and simple tablet apps, but the Surface Pro will do that.
What "quick and simple tablet apps"?
At their "show and tell" announcement they couldn't even show the "NetFlix" app running. Do you really believe there will be as many Metro apps as there apps for Kindle or Android Tablets (not to mention iPads)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purge
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaOnnaBudget
The price estimate for a "surface table" as the title implies are incorrect making the entire article flawed. Microsoft is the OEM therefore why would they have to pay $90 for their own software. So add $90 of profit to each of those estimates to get a more accurate picture.
The implied cost is based on external manufacturers, not MSFT themselves. Were MS to license for free, or a significantly reduced rate, then that discount would apply.
This challenge is no different than any other sector though. Were a steel cutting business to offer welding services, they risk competing with their clients.
I think that Microsoft has no choice - the manufacturers missed out on capitalizing on the touch interface that W7 brought to the table - and Microsoft does not want Windows 8 to be in the same boat.
I fully expect to see a Kinect 2.0 camera that turns desktop PCs into "Minority Report-like" interface, and foregoing the hardware change required for touchpads and touchscreen monitors (which are less practical).
If Microsoft doesn't pay the same licensing fee for their software as do their partners, their partners will take that as an attempt to squeeze them out of the market and therefore will not be so inclined to buy the software in the first place; they'd just stick to Android. The only way to maintain the relationship with their partners is if they subject themselves to the same costs as their partners (regarding software, leaving only the build-quality and hardware components as differentiators). They can't simply absorb the cost like Apple can. They have to make it an even playing field for all their partners. Remember Microsoft is aiming for widespread adoption of its operating system. Why should any partner be willing to play ball?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
Have you tried the Mac App Store? Plenty of free titles in there. Also, you get what you pay for. Developers like to eat
I have to agree, if I can play Diablo 3 on this new tablet count me sold. Something iPad will never accomplish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
No Dilemmas for Microsoft. All dilemma for the 'partners' (beg for crumbs from MS, or switch to Android?)
When life gives you dilemmas, make dilemmanade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
If Apple replaces the 30 pin connector, as they are rumored to be planning, this factor will be moot.
True, but I suspect that Apple is moving away from connect as the way of syncing and sharing content. They appear to be going full wireless these days and over the air updates and such. Not to say the others guys will not do the same, but, again Apple had a cleaner solution and a much larger install based of products that support them. The other things Apple is not charging them a licensing to us it, unlike M$ who wants to extract every nickel. Notice how M$ was unsuccessful at luring developer away to develop games for Zune and such, it failed.
This who ecosystem is far more complicated today and something many companies are failing to understand everyday including the wall street types.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
What if the price to compete with the Air? Too me, it seems the surface will compete in that market with tablet as a secondary. I, right now am torn between a new tablet or a ultrabook. At home I love the simplicity of my iPad 1st Gen but on the road I need horsepower. This may be right up my road and I see not having to own two devices which would cost me around $2000.
What 'horsepower' do you need on the road that you don't need at home!?
Unless, of course, you do no work at all at home that you do when you're on the road.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
For the low-end ARM models running Windows RT, he believes Microsoft will have to undercut the iPad on price to find any success. But in doing so, Microsoft could make it impossible for its Windows partners to compete.
Windows partners? For Surface? Kiss them all goodbye. Few if any will pay the $85 sucker price for each Windows RT license.
And those few OEMs that do pay the sucker price for Windows RT licenses will be killed off anyway. Probably very soon.
Because it's looking more and more likely that Microsoft will need to buy Nokia, or at least enough of Nokia to build Surfaces.
Simply for the cost savings. No mark-up on the hardware because they'd own the manufacturer.
It really looks like Microsoft is putting the smack down on Nokia right now, just to drop their market cap as much as possible.
Hence the scary announcement that Windows Phone 8 won't run on any existing Lumia, which did in fact drop NOK significantly.
NOK was trading at $2.50 on Wednesday the 20th. Microsoft made the announcement on the 21st, NOK immediately slid.
It's now trading at $2.20. Down 12%.
NOK Market cap is barely $8 billion now. How much lower does it need to go before you snap it up and turn it into the
next Danger, Ballmer?