Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimH]

Microsoft is introducing "Surface".  It's a new tablet.  The press conference is live right now.

10.6 inch
1.5 pounds
Magnesium case
Windows 8
Kickstand
Keyboard cover

http://live.theverge.com/microsoft-live-blog-tablet-announcement/

[JimH]

At least two models.  One aimed at business.  

The entry level model runs Windows 8 RT and has an Nvidia chip.

The pro model uses an Intel Ivy Bridge CPU. It's i5 level.

It has pen input and DisplayPort out to a monitor.

Two different keyboard / covers.  One looks very thin and the other looks thin but like a real keyboard.

The same accessories work on both.

[JimH]

This is a big event in computing.  The devices are very well done.

[glynor]

I hope they do well with these.

There is still too little information to properly evaluate the products themselves though, unfortunately.  I really wish Microsoft would learn that lesson from Apple and launch things when they're ready to launch, and launch them.  Stop with these incessant "previews" that tease information out in little bits and drabs.

So, they showed some nice demos, and the hardware looks pretty good from what they showed.  But we don't know:

1. Much of anything about the screen.  It doesn't bode well that they mention the Windows "Pro" version is the one that is "full HD".
2. Launch date (not even a "September" or "Coming this Fall" or anything).
3. GPU/CPU performance picture (the "hands-on" sessions were extremely short, and guided "feature tours").
4. Cameras
5. Sensors

and the big ones...

6. Battery life.
7. Pricing.

So, they showed off some new kit.  It looks really nice, and it runs Windows RT.  But there's not much software for Windows RT, and they didn't really tell us the important stuff about the devices.  Just flashed us some sexy hardware bodies.  It felt a little Blackberry-esque to me, and that's troubling.

That, and the Metro picture has to change dramatically before the Windows RT products will be enticing, while the x86-based products are going to be $1k-ish if we believe what Ballmer seems to be hinting.  Pricing, pricing, pricing...  They need to come in way below the iPad to make a dent, I suspect.  And it worries me that the low-end system is 32GB (though perhaps Windows needs the space), which means they might try to price it opposite the "next-tier-up" iPad 3 at something like $549.

I don't think it'll do well at that price.

But, let's wait and see, I suppose.  If nothing else, the Intel-based ones will be interesting.  Hopefully they can hit sub-$700 prices before long.

[Daydream]

Talking about the Win8Pro version.

If it's $1000 who would buy it? If it's much less they would undercut all their partners who'd want to make a Win8 tablet.

Why did MS made the announcement today? Boost the hype around Win8 with new toys for it? Make people hold off buying any competing product now that this is the pipeline?

[JimH]

Here's Engadget's quick first look at the RT model:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/18/hands-on-with-microsoft-surface-for-windows-rt/

Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303703004577474910029263198.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

TheVerge.com:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/18/3095335/microsoft-surface-hands-on

[Urbanito]

I want one if I can download MC into it and if I can use the USB port to play my Music (now, 1400 albums).

[JimH]

The pro version uses an Intel chip, so MC should just work.

This should let you use MC in Theater View on it as a remote.

[JimH]

That, and the Metro picture has to change dramatically before the Windows RT products will be enticing, while the x86-based products are going to be $1k-ish if we believe what Ballmer seems to be hinting.  Pricing, pricing, pricing...  They need to come in way below the iPad to make a dent, I suspect.  And it worries me that the low-end system is 32GB (though perhaps Windows needs the space), which means they might try to price it opposite the "next-tier-up" iPad 3 at something like $549.

I don't think it'll do well at that price.

They said that the prices will be "competitive".  That makes sense to me since part of the reason they're doing the devices is to push their OEM partners.

[InflatableMouse]

Competitive with ultrabooks, not with the current tablet market.

Expect prices around 1000 dollars.

[JimH]

I don't think $1000 would be "competitive".  I haven't seen that number used by Microsoft.

Consider how Microsoft used Xbox pricing as a tactic against the PS3.

[glynor]

I don't think $1000 would be "competitive".  I haven't seen that number used by Microsoft.

They said the Windows "Pro" (the Intel one) would be "competitive" with other "comparable Intel Ultrabook PCs".

That means competitive with the Macbook Air, and other ultrabooks, which are almost all priced between $899-$1100.  I'd guess that they're going to try to come in on the low-end of that, but I'd be surprised to see a price much below $850-ish.  Probably closer to $1k.  But, it isn't coming until next year.  They said that the ARM version would launch first timed with Windows 8, and the Intel version would follow 3-4 months later.

Windows 8 is expected in October.  They could certainly surprise us on this, but that's what has been long-expected and there's no rumors of any new timeline now.  Three to four months later is December best-case, but probably Q1 2013.  I'm thinking they'll launch around CES, but Microsoft doesn't want to say that they'll miss the holiday quarter, because that'd be bad PR.  Why they previewed a product that isn't coming for 6-9 months is beyond me, but Microsoft certainly seems to like to spoil their own thunder.

Now, the ARM-based Surface will be sooner and much cheaper.  For this, they said "competitive with comparable ARM tablets" (emphasis mine).  That's why I'm guessing $549.  That puts it at $50 less than the 32GB iPad 3.  Unfortunately, this isn't the only spec, and as I mentioned, Windows RT isn't as desirable because it is limited to Metro-apps-only (other than Office and IE).  They might even go higher, arguing that it comes with Office built-in, though that'd be dumb.

The problem with that logic is that this is NOT the iPad.  They can't compete against the midrange, current-gen iPad.

It almost assuredly doesn't have that screen (if it did, they'd have been shouting about it rather than hiding the specs).
It almost assuredly doesn't have that battery life.
It absolutely does NOT have that level of software support.
It absolutely does NOT have that level of third-party hardware ecosystem around it.

And the iPad's "price" isn't $599.  That's the price of one of the middle-of-the-road iPads.  The "price" that people remember is $399 for last year's model, or $499 for this years.  Even if they end up splurging when they walk into the store (or load the webpage to click buy) and they "upgrade" to the $599 model, when they're making the purchasing decision, they think of the $399-$499 price point.  The size of the Flash storage is something they'll consider after they decide what to buy, in most cases.  That would only work if the market had "decided" that the two products were roughly equivalent, and they need a few years of success under their belt for that to happen.

For now, at that price point, $549 feels like it is $50 more for something "unproven" from Microsoft, even if it does have more storage (and how much of that'll be eaten up by Windows/Office anyway).  The Android tablets all fell into the same trap.

Now, of course, I'm totally making numbers up out of whole cloth here.  Perhaps Microsoft will really sell these things at a loss and will come out at $350 or something crazy.  That would be smart.  You can't sell something new and unproven with those negatives for the same price as the iPad.  Your product has to either be way cheaper, or way better.  This might be very good, but I don't think most consumers will see it as "way better".  Not for years.

[glynor]

Perhaps Microsoft will really sell these things at a loss and will come out at $350 or something crazy.  That would be smart.

I should add.  I also think Apple has a 7.85" iPad that they're going to launch (and ship) in October at the iPhone announcement for something around $299-$349, which could blunt a lot of the potential of this, even if they launch at $350-ish.

It makes sense.  If you take the exact same pixel density of the iPhone 3GS, and you scale the screen size up to 7.85" (cutting bigger pieces from the LCD panels), you get 1024x768.  Or, the exact same dimensions of the original iPad and iPad 2.  That's awfully neat and tidy and keeps the software support picture simple.

In October, it stands to reason that they're going to discontinue the 3GS finally and drop the iPhone 4 to $0 on contract.  Then, you have all that 3GS-specific screen production capacity and machinery sitting there idle and wasted.  Why not re-tool the lines a bit (starting now), cut bigger slabs, and keep running them for a few more years?

That's a Tim Cook idea if I've ever heard one.  It'll be his first big One More Thing.  Mark my words down to make fun of me later if it isn't true.

[pcstockton]

I think MS is missing the boat.

For the non Win8 version, iPad will kill them.  The iPad is smaller, lighter, thinner, and most likely has a better screen.

For the Pro version they are missing the fact that we dont want a tablet to be a full computer.  The swiss army approach always fails.

Smartphone cameras dont make a real camera obsolete.  A tablet does not make a Laptop obsolete.  A laptop doesn't make a full fledged PC obsolete.  Each have their place in the world.  Some of us are able to avoid one of the above (laptop for me) but not usually all.

Trying to make all of them the same device is folly, bound to be wrought with compromise.

-Patrick

[JimH]

For the non Win8 version, iPad will kill them.  The iPad is smaller, lighter, thinner, and most likely has a better screen.

The iPad isn't thinner.  It's less than an ounce lighter.  It has a smaller screen.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/tech/microsoft-surface-ipad/index.html

Most people using them on airplanes bring along a cover that makes a stand.  The Surface has one built in.

[rjm]

The iPad is near perfect and getting better every day with new apps and improved apps. My favorite apps add features about every month. And I find a new killer app at about the same frequency.

Microsoft does not have a chance.

p.s. I am not an Apple fan.

[JimH]

The iPad is near perfect and getting better every day with new apps and improved apps. My favorite apps add features about every month. And I find a new killer app at about the same frequency.

Microsoft does not have a chance.

p.s. I am not an Apple fan.

You do a good imitation.

[pcstockton]

The iPad isn't thinner.  It's less than an ounce lighter.  It has a smaller screen.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/tech/microsoft-surface-ipad/index.html

Most people using them on airplanes bring along a cover that makes a stand.  The Surface has one built in.

A comparison chart on one of the links you provided said otherwise, but Ill take your word for it.  The chart showed the RT model to be .1mm thicker.  Not really worth splitting hairs though.  We can call them the same.

Regarding covers, every cover Apple has made has a "stand".  The Surface's cover is no more "built-in" than the iPad's.

If it is a fantastic product I will buy one when the time comes to upgrade the iPad3.  I am not holding my breath though.

If I need to use a PC, i.e. I cant or wont, use an iPad, I am going to want a real computer.  For example, if I am using some estimating software or typing long emails, working on spreadsheets, writing a proposal or editing pictures, I am going to want a legit mouse and keyboard, plus I will want a good sized display.  Tablets will never work here.  Hence, no real need for a Pro Surface.

I just dont see a good fit here.  At least for the pro version.

And as I mentioned above, the iPad will kill the market the RT will play in.  I imagine it will relate to the iPad in the same way the Zunes related to the iPod.....  meaning they are F-ed.

-Patrick

PS - I am also a non-Mac user, and most likely never will use a MacOS computer, for what that is worth.  I use a PC at work and at home I have two (Workstation/Server and HTPC).  But for phones and tablets the iOS cant be beat right now.  Of course it is all preference but mine doesn't come from any deep seated prejudice as is prevalent in this world.

[JimH]

Regarding covers, every cover Apple has made has a "stand".  The Surface's cover is no more "built-in" than the iPad's.

The cover is a keyboard.  Two different ones.  The kickstand is an integral part of the device.

If I need to use a PC, i.e. I cant or wont, use an iPad, I am going to want a real computer. 

It is a real PC.

It's more like the ASUS Transformers that merge the idea of tablet and notebook.  The screen detaches to be used as a tablet.

[pcstockton]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/tech/microsoft-surface-ipad/index.html

To quote the article in that link: "the software company clearly had one ultimate goal: to make a tablet that's better than the iPad."

Mistake.  They should be trying to make a tablet that is better than a laptop.  It will take a herculean effort to make a tablet better than the iPad.

I bet they would be more successful developing a suite of MS software that runs on the iPad.

-Patrick

[glynor]

The iPad isn't thinner.  It's less than an ounce lighter.  It has a smaller screen.

That's right.  If you compare to the new iPad, and not the iPad 2, they are essentially the same thickness (Surface=0.36 inches, iPad=0.37 inches).

However, it is one of the heavier tablets out there now at 1.5lbs (the iPad 3 is 1.44, the iPad 2 is 1.33, the Transformer Prime super-awesome but unavailable edition is 1.29, and the Acer Iconia is 1.47).  It isn't MUCH heavier, but at 1.5lbs, that matches the weight of the original iPad (which was also 1.5lbs in the WiFi only model).  I can certainly feel the difference between the original iPad and my iPad 3.  The iPad 2 is the most comfortable, and is noticeably lighter than both.  Little differences in weight make a much bigger difference in a tablet form-factor than they do in a laptop.  But, I do think it'll probably be fine in the end.  The weight of the iPad 1 wasn't terrible, and this will be better because of the thin design, I'd guess.

The main reason it is heavier is likely the bigger screen (the battery capacity is between the iPad 2 and 3 in size).  But bigger isn't better, and they haven't admitted what that resolution is (though it does seem to probably be an IPS screen, at least, from the hands-on reports).

It is a real PC.

That really only applies to the Windows Pro/Intel version.

Again, that product is much more vaporous.  It is unlikely to launch this year.  Pricing is unknown, but will be comparable to ultrabook laptops, so that gives us a good idea.  It is much bigger, heavier, and hotter.  And it will probably have awful battery life with an i5 in there (I really want a nice dual core i3 CPU in one).  I think that product is far from complete, even internally.  They didn't have these at the hands-on sessions.

I think the Windows Pro version will be a nice product, but if I jump, I'll probably buy an ASUS one instead.  It'll probably be cheaper and maybe not quite so big.  In any case,  I do NOT think the Intel Surface will be an iPad competitor.  They're different classes of products.  It'll be a special class of laptop.

The ARM based Windows RT system?

That is a tablet.  The fact that you can run a special version of Office, in a kind-of crappy desktop "silo" (but nothing else, mind-you), doesn't make it suddenly into any more of a "real PC" than an iPad.  It isn't going to run MC, it isn't going to run Photoshop Lightroom, and it isn't going to run desktop Chrome or Firefox.

I can run Office on my iPad 3 too.  I have both QuickOffice Pro (which is awesome, by the way) and both Windows and OSX VMs on my iPad.  I've never actually needed to launch Office in the VM because QuickOffice is so good, but I could if I ever needed to.  How is that different, functionally?  Except for that, in a pinch, I can run full-fledged desktop apps "on" my iPad, of course.  I've edited things in Photoshop CS 5.5 on it from a hotel room before (in a VM that I remote-connect to).  It isn't ideal, of course, but it works pretty darn well considering, and I have about 100 different remote access and VM client apps to choose from.

They're all computers, designed for different usage scenarios.

[glynor]

That really only applies to the Windows Pro/Intel version.

I really think this is going to be their biggest problem.

People will think:  Awesome.  A "real PC" that's also a tablet and runs Windows.  They're going to buy one, take it home, unpack it and play with Metro for a while and ooh-and-ahh.  Then they're going to try to migrate their old stuff off of their old laptop/desktop machine, and discover that it doesn't run any of their old software.  They can't install that version of Quicken they bought just last tax-season.  They can't install anything.

And they'll get returned.  Certainly not everyone.  But I think more than a few people will be confused and disappointed.

[JimH]

If Microsoft did the Win RT version well, it could just be a recompile.  Each new version of Windows throws us a few curve balls.  This one may have a few extra but I doubt it will be a big job.

[glynor]

If Microsoft did the Win RT version well, it could just be a recompile.

You misunderstand, Jim.

They've already said.  There's NO Desktop API for Windows RT.  No recompiling at all, in any way.

It is Metro or nothing.  Only Office, IE, Windows Explorer get exceptions.  I'll look up the links later, but there were Microsoft Blog entries that detailed in painstakingly.  Perhaps they'll change their tune, but probably not until Windows 9 (or whatever).  Certainly not anytime near-term.

[JimH]

Metro is just the Start menu of Win7.  MC can be a Metro tile.

[glynor]

Metro is just the Start menu of Win7.  MC can be a Metro tile.

Metro on Windows 8 x86/64 will be used, by most people, much like the Start Menu in Windows 7.  You'll pin favorite applications, but when you launch them, they'll switch you over into the traditional desktop and run the same x86 code that the developer would have written for Windows 7 (and the developer can still develop for Windows 7 customers too, simultaneously).

Windows RT (on ARM) is different.  You cannot do this.  At all.  All third party code must run entirely "within" the Metro UI.  It cannot access the Windows Desktop, or the associated APIs, at all.

So, yes, if you port the entire thing over as a Metro application, then you can offer MC as a Metro application and run it on ARM devices.  However, if you want to continue to support the existing user base on Windows 7 PCs, or "desktop users" on Windows 8, you will need to maintain two very different applications with two completely separate user interfaces.  It will almost certainly be a major undertaking.

Stephen Sinofsky outlined it in this widely reported blog post, and then Jason Zander expanded on it earlier this month.  The Sinofsky post in particular is a dense read, and it is hard to get the important nuggets buried in all the glowing marketing-speak, but Paul Thurrott boiled it down:

Application (in)compatibility. Third party Win32/Explorer style applications--that is, all applications sold and made today, will not work on WOA systems. They cannot be ported to WOA, and cannot be made available in any way to WOA users. In WOA, Microsoft is only providing the basic desktop features from Windows 8 (file management, task manager and so on), the desktop version of Internet Explorer 10, and special versions of key Office 15 applications (see below).

Furthermore, WOA systems will not support running x86-based applications in emulation or virtualization (and Hyper-V is not part of the WOA versions of Windows . Get the message? Only a tiny subset of desktop applications will work on WOA, and all of those will ship with WOA systems, from Microsoft only.

From Sinofsky's post:

Previously we have detailed that WOA will not support any type of virtualization or emulation approach, and will not enable existing x86/64 applications to be ported or run. Supporting various forms of emulation runs counter to the goal of delivering a product that takes a modern approach to system reliability and predictability—by definition, existing code has not been optimized for the platform the way WOA has. Virtualized or emulated software will consume system resources, including battery life and CPU, at unacceptable levels. Emulation and virtualization of existing x86/64 software also require the traditional PC environment of mouse and keyboard, which is not a good assumption for WOA PCs.

If we enabled the broad porting of existing code we would fail to deliver on our commitment to longer battery life, predictable performance, and especially a reliable experience over time. The conventions used by today’s Windows apps do not necessarily provide this, whether it is background processes, polling loops, timers, system hooks, startup programs, registry changes, kernel mode code, admin rights, unsigned drivers, add-ins, or a host of other common techniques.

...

Developers wanting to reach WOA with existing apps have two options. Many apps will be best served by building new Metro style front ends for existing data sources or applications, and communicating through a web services API. This approach will be quite common for line-of-business applications and many consumer web properties, and represents the best way to tap into the power of a rich user interaction model where you can also interact across and share information with other new apps. Of course, these do not need to be just front-ends, but could operate on local data too, since WOA provides full access to files and peripherals. Other existing applications will be well served by reusing large amounts of engine or runtime code, and surrounding that with a Metro style experience. This will take some time, and represents a way for applications that are composed of significant intellectual property to move to WOA and WinRT. In all cases, WinRT represents the new set of Windows OS services that developers can use to build software that is Designed for Windows 8.

So, you either write a separate little Metro "front end applet" which communicates with an external data source using the web services API (which cannot be running on the actual the same physical machine, but external: think Twitter apps and apps like Instapaper); or you can re-write the entire application as a Metro app.  Metro applications will NOT run on the Windows desktop environment or switch to it.  They cannot be run on previous versions of Windows.  You can re-use engine code (stuff behind the scenes) but the entire application must be re-written, and the entire UI has to be re-imagined.  The API is totally different.  Plus, the only way to get apps on Windows RT devices will be, just like Apple, via the Microsoft App Store (or whatever they call it):

WOA PCs will be serviced only through Windows or Microsoft Update, and consumer apps will only come from the Windows Store, so you never have to worry if a program will run because you are not downloading or installing from a DVD outside of the store experience.

That's essentially the same exact thing as iOS development (developers can, after all, re-use Objective C "engine" code from a MacOS application in the same way).  The only difference is that Microsoft "cheated" themselves, because they are using the Desktop environment for Office, desktop IE, the Control Panel, Windows Explorer, and the other "desktop applets" that Windows comes with now.  But they're not letting you cheat.  If you want to run on Windows on Arm, you have to do it with a Metro-only app, distributed through the Windows Store, approved by Microsoft, and they must follow the "Metro style guidelines" (much like the iOS platform rules regarding backgrounding and whatnot).  These new Metro applications will be separate from any "legacy" applications you continue to develop for your other customers who haven't moved to Windows 8.

It is, essentially, a clone of the iOS development environment.  Sure, you can write in C++ if you want to (they do seem to discourage even that somewhat), and you can access peripherals and the filesystem without as much of iOS's stupidity, but... That's a far cry from:

If Microsoft did the Win RT version well, it could just be a recompile.

I think you might be in for a surprise.  I've talked to our developers here in house.  They've looked at it in a fair bit of detail.  Even though we generally do only write applications that target external databases, they felt this was going to be as major an undertaking as porting to an entirely new platform.  They certainly could be wrong, and maybe so much of your engine is "isolated" that you can disable the parts you're "not allowed" to do, whip up a Metro-only UI quickly, and staple it to a modified version of the existing back-end.  But I'd be pretty surprised with something as deep and complex as MC.

[glynor]

PS.  I think the most revealing thing they've announced about Metro and porting to Windows 8, is that Windows Phone 7 apps will be very easy to port over.  Even that won't be a straight recompile.  You'll need to switch from writing against the Silverlight APIs over to the "corresponding Windows Runtime APIs."

But as they say:

In many cases, your code will remain the same or nearly the same. XAML-based UI APIs in the Windows Runtime are modeled closely on the Silverlight for Windows Phone versions, although there are some differences. Additionally, the .NET APIs for Metro style apps are available, which are a subset of the full .NET Framework and are similar to the APIs in the .NET Framework for Silverlight. In some cases, however, familiar .NET APIs have been moved to the Windows Runtime and have a somewhat different design.

Porting from Windows Phone 7 to Windows 8 Metro will be easy-peasy.
Porting from Windows 7 isn't just "hard", they call it impossible.  You have to start over.

That shows you what kind of apps they're looking for.  They're looking for ground-up written tablet apps and existing mobile apps.  They're not looking for Photoshop to be ported over, now or ever.

So, the question a non-WP7 developer looking to support Windows RT should ask is this one:  How hard would it be, if I wanted to port my entire application to Silverlight (and/or Windows Phone 7) as they stand now?

[Scolex]

Steve is haunting the decision makers at MS and convincing them to do all the wrong things.

[glynor]

Steve is haunting the decision makers at MS and convincing them to do all the wrong things.

I don't know.  It sounds to me an awful lot like Bill's old mantra: embrace, extend, and extinguish.  Adopt the method, systems, and styles of your "enemy", mess with the standards where possible to create lock-in, and then throw the weight of Windows and Office against them with all your might, until you grind them down.

The same playbook, but I suspect a wildly different situation than they've encountered any time in "corporate memory".  They can't push the entire hardware industry around like they once could, they're playing catch-up with developer support on ARM at least, and they're playing in a segment in which they've never been entirely comfortable or successful (consumer electronics).

Still, at least it is bold.  And Metro is genuinely different, unlike Android which (still) feels like a "different version" of iOS.  As though it is to iOS as KDE is to Windows.  Metro is not that.  I think we're seeing a bit of the old Microsoft coming out to play, and they're going all-in.  But they seem to have realized that (unlike IE, Lotus 123, and WordPerfect) they're in a world where a cheap knock-off won't work, and built something honestly uniquely "Microsoft".

It should make for an interesting show.

[glynor]

I didn't know they had this document available now:  Here's a reference on specifically what subset of the Win32 and COM APIs Metro supports via the WinRT API.

The overview is in the "Alternatives to" section, which I can't link to directly.

[Scolex]

I agree it is different I don't think it is the correct move though, the iOS and Android markets are already very well established and both are very good IMO.
While they are quite similar and Android may appear as a bit of a clone to some there are also things that make them different the primary one
for me at least is the amount of customization that can be done.
Well I should say the secondary as the primary one is that you couldn't pay me to have iTunes on any device due to a bad experience several years ago so
all of the iDevices are not an option for me.

I think MS would be better served to make Windows more Tablet friendly in a server/cloud sense instead of trying to create yet another tablet OS.
If history tells us anything it will not be good but maybe they will finally make a decent mobile OS.

I have to say I am intrigued by the Intel based tablet but the RT version does not interest me at all. Waiting to see what kind of battery life they will have
before I get too excited about them though.

[InflatableMouse]

I grew up with every MS-DOS version since 3.x, used Windows from version 2 and as systems engineer I worked with a lot of Microsoft products since the early 90's. I like a lot of products that come from Microsoft both professionally and for personal use. I've been longing for a good, x86 compatible tablet for a very long time and for as long as I can remember Windows tablets have failed. When Apple came out with the first iphone I realized I was wrong, I don't want a Windows tablet or even one that is x86 compatible.

Microsoft has failed at every attempt to serve the mobile market and when I see what they are doing with this, I can't help myself and think its failing too, even when I don't want it to. For that reason I will hold off. I think a lot of people will do the same for their own reasons and thats going to directly influence the potential success they have here. News is already divided and already there is a quite a bit of negativity floating around.

That and the fear that Microsoft will insanely overprice these tablets. At best they will cater a niche market.

[)p(]

That and the fear that Microsoft will insanely overprice these tablets. At best they will cater a niche market.

At first maybe but I think apple's market share will erode over time and they will become a niche player again. I just cant see one company take on a whole industry (microsoft and all its oem partners) in the long run.

But for now I enjoy our ipad's, as mentioned above they are already darn near perfect for the things we use them for.

[pcstockton]

It is a real PC.

Jim,

I know it will be able to run full Windows.  My point about a "real PC" is that the more complex the activity, the less useful a tablet is.  There are plenty of things I can do on both my iPad and desktop PC.  But the sub 17" screen, no decent mouse or serious keyboard, the need to sometimes tap on the screen to zoom and move around, etc, keep me from using an iPad.

Tablets are great for the same things that smartphones are great for.  You just get a bigger screen.  Who is using their iPhones or iPads to create powerpoint presentations or serious photo/video editing? 

If you dont want to use a smartphone for a particular "PC activity" you wont want to use a tablet most likely.

-p

[JimH]

Dvorak's guess on pricing:
http://noagendashow.visibli.com/share/QOh5d7

[glynor]

Digitimes said $599+ for the Windows RT version, and "above $799" for the Intel one.  But it is Digitimes and they're often full of crap.

I know he is a wide-eyed Apple fanboy, and most of you will dismiss his comments out-of-hand, but the best thing I read about the Surface all week was John Gruber's take on the situation.  Really quite insightful.  And, before you assume he just trashes it, he doesn't.  He's pretty harsh on their presentation (deservedly, in my opinion), but he's actually been pretty impressed by a lot in Windows 8 and Metro, and has said repeatedly that if there was no iPhone, his smartphone of choice would probably be Windows Phone 7.  He's even joked about how amazing it was that he, of all people, just said such a thing.

In any case, check it out.  Very cool article (as is the one he quotes at length from Horace Dediu):

Microsoft this week showed itself willing to do what was once unthinkable: design and sell its own PC hardware. This is a profound change of direction for Microsoft and the entire PC industry. The iPad, however, has been out for so long and has been so successful that no one seemed shocked by Microsoft’s announcement. But make no mistake: for better or for worse, Surface marks a watershed moment in PC industry history.

Harry McCracken:

    After 37 years, Microsoft agrees with Alan Kay: “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.”

The ever-astute Lessien, tweeting shortly after Microsoft’s event:

    Microsoft’s move today suggests it feared the irretrievable loss of the tablet market to iPad, if it continued to rely on third-party OEMs.

I’d go further, and argue they fear losing not just the tablet market, but the PC market as a whole. Not in sheer numbers, but in sheer profit. Apple doesn’t want to sell all of the world’s computers and phones; rather, Apple wants to reap all the profits in the computer and phone industries. There is no threat that Windows goes away, but there is a serious threat that Microsoft’s profit from Windows greatly diminishes.

[glynor]

So, they announced the pricing (finally) and some things about battery life and additional details about the Surface RT models.

In case you were under a rock, here's the deal:

Surface RT 32GB: $499
Surface RT 32GB with Touch Cover Included: $599
Surface RT 64GB with Touch Cover Included: $699

Touch Cover By Itself: $119
Type Cover (the other one) By Itself: $129

All models are WiFi only.

Yes, this means the minimum price for the 64GB model is $699, as it cannot be bought without the touch cover.  If you want to get the Type Cover instead, too bad, you have to buy both for $828.

You can pre-order one now.  It looks like initial pre-orders of the cheapest model sold out, and they're showing something like a 3 week wait.

Other things they announced (either with this or since the last update on this thread):

* Display: 1366x768 (it appears that it will be a nice IPS display well color balanced ala the iPhone 5, but we don't know specifics yet)
* Video Out:  It does NOT, as was widely discussed (and still reported lots of places), have an HDMI out port.  It has a proprietary "HD Video Out" port for which you have to buy an adapter for $39.99 (so basically the same as the iPad except the iPad's port is multi-purpose and also charges the device).
* Battery Life (Claimed): "Up to 8 hours" (whatever that means)
* Capacity:  While the cheapest Surface RT ships with 32GB of storage minimum, which puts it at $100 cheaper than the iPad 3 for the same storage capacity, this isn't the entire story.  It turns out, the available space after the OS and Office Preview will be around 20GB on the 32GB model (according to a Microsoft Engineer on a Reddit AMA thread).  So, that answers the question of why there isn't a 16GB version, and explains a lot about their pricing... If the OS and a few applications take up 12GB, then you can't very well ship a 16GB model.  For comparison, my 32GB iPad 3 has over 28GB of space free when freshly wiped (this actually went up a bit after iOS 6).

So, they beat my guess by $50, except they stripped out the promised Touch Cover Keyboard in the Box, and they're actually charging $599 for what they announced way back when.

[glynor]

We will see, but for the record, I don't think it will do very well at that price.  If you are considering one, I'd recommend you wait until after the new year, as I think we'll see discounts once the holidays are through.  Plus, then we should have the Surface Pro launch imminent, and that's the actually exciting product, and we will have a much better picture of the pace and scope of applications available for it.

As discussed above: If you expect a wide variety of current desktop applications to be quickly ported over to the ARM tablet, you're going to be disappointed.  The Surface RT is a tablet like the iPad, and has a closed ecosystem like the iPad.  Expect the apps you can get from the Windows Store to be tablet apps, like the iPad, but with the Modern UI style, and it might take a while for them to ramp up the ecosystem (I do think their plan will work, though, but certainly not like many of the seething fanboys out there keep claiming).

We could, of course, do a spec-by-spec comparison to competing ARM tablets, but that doesn't make a bunch of sense, because so much of the value of a tablet is tied up in the ecosystem.  Plus, different things matter more or less to different people depending on their priorities.  For example, I read on mine a lot (that's 80% of what I do with it), so I prefer a 4x3 aspect ratio to 16x9, and prefer the high resolution screen so that fonts look good.  If you, instead, watch a lot of video on it, then a 16x9 screen with better color reproduction and less glare will be much more important.  Same goes for almost all of the other features (and comparing CPUs and RAM is silly when they're on totally different OSes with different performance profiles and different needs and requirements).

I still think it is an interesting product (much more so than the HP TouchPad or whatever RIM called their silly thing), and I think it will give the high-end Android tablets a terrible time.

Once they announced that price, though, I think there were probably smiles all around in Cupertino.

Also, there's this disaster looming: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/17/3514556/windows-8-vs-windows-rt-surface-confused-microsoft-store-employees

Confronted with a lack of information, I did what any good consumer might: I called up my local Microsoft Store and asked a representative about Windows RT's capabilities. I played it dumb. Then, shocked by what I heard, I called up three others, and chatted up four more via the Microsoft Store website. Eight representatives in total.

I told some of them I was interested in Surface with Windows 8, and waited to see if they'd correct me and tell me it had Windows RT. (None did.) I asked others if Windows RT and Windows 8 were the same thing. I asked all of them what the differences between the two operating systems were — several times if I needed to — and I asked about any jargon or terminology that I thought an average buyer might have trouble understanding. I asked if I could move my games over to the Surface with Windows RT, and if I could install applications there.

To their credit, half of the representatives admitted that Windows RT wasn't as capable as Windows 8. The other half... not so much. Moreover, those reps who did admit issues seemed dismissive of Windows RT as a whole.

Check it out... Many of the quotes from the reps were astoundingly bad.

[Daydream]

Couldn't care any less about Windows RT, the tablets running it and anything like that. It's an aimless product.

The Surface Pro that's the real deal. And speaking of that, did you see the prices (Newegg, etc) for competing products - Acer W700, Samsung Series 7, like that. $900 to $1200. It they sell at those prices, will they kill the laptops?

[e-head]

Couldn't care any less about Windows RT, the tablets running it and anything like that. It's an aimless product.

There is a legitimate market for such devices, at least until technology can make the weight/heat/power compromise irrelevant. I could definitely use a super light and long lasting device for the gym (I just prop it up on the treadmill), and just reading at the cafe.

If I want to do serious computing I use my laptop.

Admittedly, eventually technology might progress to the point where no compromise is necessary.

[wig]

Surface Pro news is starting bubble up, and it's not looking too promising.

Over $1000 and crappy battery life? smh.

http://www.ghacks.net/2012/11/30/surface-pro-price-and-battery-life-disappoint/

[jmone]

What I don't like is the lack of 3G/4G and GPS on most of these devices....  and for the few the are available it tends to push this devices towards $2K!  We have had them on our cheapie Andriod Phone/Tabs for years.

[Daydream]

What I don't like is the lack of 3G/4G and GPS on most of these devices....  and for the few the are available it tends to push this devices towards $2K!  We have had them on our cheapie Andriod Phone/Tabs for years.

But they're not reliable - the internal GPS - in cities with relatively tall buildings. I was jumping like Spider-Man from building to building, in New York, not walking the streets. Do you see yourself flipping and gesticulating with an 11" tablet to catch a better signal? As an alternative - a bluetooth dongle paired with an external, high-end GPS will get you much better results.

But these are details, subjective to everybody's needs and tastes. That battery life at $1000 price mark (and above), that's a deal-breaker. Like in that joke, this is not a tablet, it's a reversed laptop: from thin screen and bulky keyboard with the guts under it to bulky screen with the guts under it and a thin (and optional) keyboard.

Haswell seems a much better fit for a tablet, but when are they gonna launch. Let's say '2013 soon'. So what's gonna happen, MS will launch a Surface 2 in 6 months? Really? Let's assume Haswell launched in Q3 2012... we gonna see tablets with it in January 2014. Somebody's delusional if they think the market will wait that long and then the entire product/brand/idea will not fail completely by then.

[)p(]

I dont like the kick stand. It limits its use with a keyboard to a desk. After playing a round with a few touch enabled laptops I do like a touchscreen on a laptop. It really feels natural to occasionally just touch and swipe stuff. So unlike for desktops I think touch is a nice addition for laptops.

[Dunbar]

To those predicting failure of the Windows RT devices.. I'm not so sure.  I gave my iPad (new) to my daughter and bought a Surface RT 3 weeks ago.  I'm impressed.  it's light, easier to hold than the iPad, has a functional keyboard and virtually all the apps that I used on the iPad.  Are there as many apps as iPad? No.  But the ones that I used regularly are there.  The apps are getting frequent updates that add features and there are hundreds of apps being added every week it seems.   The device is durable and has good battery life.  It's not perfect, but neither is the iPad.  Honestly, I actually prefer the Surface (good thing as I'll net get the iPad back from my daughter).  

I'd really like to see JRiver come out with a very good media player come out on the Windows 8 store that supports both Intel and ARM so it will work on my Surface.  Now is the time to make your name in the media player for this new market!  JRiver could kick-ass.  If you listen to those saying "don't waste your time" then you'll eventually be left behind.  This isn't going to go away.  

[pcstockton]

JRiver could kick-ass.  This isn't going to go away.  

JRiver already kicks serious ass..... aaaaaaand yes it most likely will.

[goatherder]

To those predicting failure of the Windows RT devices.. I'm not so sure.  I gave my iPad (new) to my daughter and bought a Surface RT 3 weeks ago.  I'm impressed.  it's light, easier to hold than the iPad, has a functional keyboard and virtually all the apps that I used on the iPad.  Are there as many apps as iPad? No.  But the ones that I used regularly are there.  The apps are getting frequent updates that add features and there are hundreds of apps being added every week it seems.   The device is durable and has good battery life.  It's not perfect, but neither is the iPad.  Honestly, I actually prefer the Surface (good thing as I'll net get the iPad back from my daughter).  

I'd really like to see JRiver come out with a very good media player come out on the Windows 8 store that supports both Intel and ARM so it will work on my Surface.  Now is the time to make your name in the media player for this new market!  JRiver could kick-ass.  If you listen to those saying "don't waste your time" then you'll eventually be left behind.  This isn't going to go away.  

This is actually very true. Especially since they've bizarrely made XBox Music such a crap (clearly beta) experience.

I'd really like to see at least a front-ending app in it for MC. Webgizmo has a jarring user experience.

[glynor]

Digitimes said $599+ for the Windows RT version, and "above $799" for the Intel one.  But it is Digitimes and they're often full of crap.

Well... Digitimes was a little bit full of crap, but not in the way you'd might hope.

Surface Pro availability and pricing was announced today.  Launches in the US and Canada only on Feb 9.

Surface Pro 64GB (no keyboard cover) - $899
Surface Pro 128GB (no keyboard cover) - $999
Keyboard Cover bundle +$100

So, if you want the keyboard, the minimum price is a grand.  They're also now going to offer the 64GB Surface RT sans cover for $599 (before it was $699 with the cover, but you couldn't get that capacity without one bundled, now they'll have the option too like the smaller version).

PS.  Dvorak also guessed low and suggested it could be a disaster.

[glynor]

Oh... Apparently this was announced way back in November.  The release date, region (US/Canada only for now), and the new bundle-free version of the Surface RT are the only things that are new in this.  I'd seen hardware specs but not pricing.  Nor had I seen this...

Update: Microsoft has also tweeted that the Surface Pro's battery life will be about half that of the Surface RT, which translates to around 4-4.5 hours.

[Matt]

The Surface Pro is interesting because it does something no other tablet can do -- run Photoshop, Quicken, Media Center, real games, your work programs, support basically all hardware, etc.

But they married it in name to the Surface RT, and I find this totally confusing.

I'm doubly confused because I don't understand why RT exists.  What does it do better than Android and iPad?