This is going to be one of those columns that's either wildly prescient, or else something dragged out in 5-year intervals to point at and mock.
I would not underestimate, with all the below, the power and draw that Microsoft has on the business word. A tablet that (we're promised) flawlessly runs Office has a big leg up in getting acquired by corporations, no matter what the form factor issues might be. (h/t +John E. Bredehoft)
Reshared post from +Alex Schleber
*I've been collecting my thoughts on the Microsoft "Surface" "tablet",* and rather than trying to gel it into a longer coherent post, here's the key points, rapid-fire, not necessarily in any particular order:
0) Vaporware… (by the way, in this context am I the only one who found it hilariously ironic that they called the case for this thing "VaporMag"…).
-> zdnet.com/blog/perlow/surface-microsoft-what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you/20599
"So let me get this straight, Microsoft. You made journalists schlep across the country, no, the planet, for a product that might not ship for months? … no ship date, no prices and… no compelling 3rd-party applications or even Office to show on it whatsoever. So we have no idea how well it performs, and how well supported it will be by 3rd-party software developers. …No demonstration or even any claims of how good the battery life on each model is."
—1) Microsoft just threw a grenade into their OEMs locker-room, and they must be pretty desperate about Windows 8/RT's chances to have done so.
From the same ZDNet post: "…And if the Pro version of the Surface is powerful enough, with Intel Core i5 Ivy Bridge CPUs, why do we need Ultrabooks if we can just clamp a keyboard cover to a Surface Pro? Am I the only person who believes this thing is a total jump the shark cluster-you-know-what for Microsoft?
Right now, Microsoft’s OEMs — with the exception of whatever “lucky” company got the nod to do the contract manufacturing for this product — must be absolutely livid. To produce their own ARM and x86 Windows 8 systems, they have to pay exorbitant licensing fees. Windows RT is going to cost an estimated $85 per copy to your average OEM. A Windows 8 Professional license on x86 will be considerably more."
—More on the possible intention of the Surface RT and Pro being "halo devices" at the bottom of the post.
2) Which brings me to the form-factor issue: The 10.6" screen size makes both these tablets too large, while the "Pro" version at 2 pounds is also way too heavy, and ends up being more like a Netbook, no?
I've said for a long time that I find even the 9.7" iPad with still wide bezel around the screen too large at times for truly mobile, non-tiring use. Same for the ubiquitous 10.1" Android tablets.
Which is BTW why I personally settled on a Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9, which also only weighs just under 1 pound, and makes for the perfect size/weight/handling combination for my tastes.
But 10.6" weighing in at 2 pounds?! Who on earth are they thinking will use this thing as a tablet? This truly is more in the direction of the meaning of "slate" or stone tablets…
It appears that MSFT are running headlong into the power-requirements for Win8/RT leading to non-tablet-y weight/size trap that I have pointed out repeatedly before as the Achille's Heel of the whole Windows 8 "combined OS" enterprise (-> businessmindhacks.com/post/steve-ballmers-nightmare-scenario item #3). SeekingAlpha has a post up that goes in the same direction:
"…its Surface Pro version still seems a bit half-baked. In the attempt to feed it Intel's (INTC) Ivy Bridge i5, the device ended up being a little on the thick side and needing active cooling. It would seem Microsoft would do better to have a second go at this and use a slightly less powerful Intel processor, to get the device using passive cooling and getting a bit slimmer." – seekingalpha.com/article/667821-microsoft-surface-and-windows-8-tablets-in-general-will-be-competitive
The whole point of the post-PC/iPad is low weight, low power consumption, and incredible battery life. #facepalm
3) And while Apple at least had a compelling reason not to make the iPad 3 lighter (it actually became a tiny bit heavier over the iPad 2 – interesting tidbit, Apple no longer lists the weight of the iPad 2 on the official specs sheet… you just can't explain to the average consumer why it had to get a touch heavier…) due to the extra horsepower and battery required to run the Retina display, the screen resolution for the Surface RT (especially) and Pro versions will not even be close:
"The "Full HD display" Microsoft mentions in its spec sheet for the Windows Pro version suggests a 1,920×1,080 pixel resolution. That might also imply a 1,280×720 display (aka 720p) on the vanilla "HD" Windows RT Surface tablet." – reviews.cnet.com/tablets/microsoft-surface-rt/4505-3126_7-35332494.html
So what we'll likely have will be a slightly-too-large tablet built to compete with the iPad 2 specs, at the price around the iPad 3 or possibly worse ($400 – $600 range). And a Slate with near Ultrabook specs, but with a too-small-for-laptop-too-large-for-tablet 10.6" screen. Macbook Airs/Ultrabooks in my view have a sweet-spot in the 11.5-13.5" range.
And the 11.6" screen Macbook Air is only 17mm thick at its thickest point, while the Surface Pro will be a 13.5mm slab throughout, not counting the covers with the keyboard and/or keyboard/trackpad options adding between 3 and 5mm, the latter putting it over the thickness of the MBA.
This same 11.6 MBA is priced at $999, right around where the Surface Pro will presumably be priced. Are you kidding me?! Oh, and another thing that no one I have read so far has addressed: How well do you think that "kickstand" thing on the Surface will work on your LAP?!
4) In summation, even in the realm of vaporware, Microsoft "magically" manages to dream up the worst of all worlds… a tablet that is too-large to be truly mobile, and out of spec (already! wait until the iPad 3S or similar refresh next spring…) with the current main contender, and so far has no 3G/4G option from all we know.
As well as a laptop that is saddled with a netbook-like too-small screen, and a tablet-like Accessories=Afterthought keyboard/kickstand "solution".
All while managing to tick off their supposed OEM partners, highlighting the elephant in the room of too-expensive Windows 8/RT licensing costs to keep margins competitive on supposed Win8/RT tablets, and appearing generally desperate.
5) So I have to disagree with TechCrunch's Matt Burns here:
"…To me the Surface doesn’t seem like a serious iPad contender but rather a reference design or even a halo device. When released later this year ARM models will likely start around $400-$600 and x86 models will hit closer to $1,000. Even though it will likely never outsell the iPad, the Surface sets a clear standard for HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, and Asus. It shows the rest of the industry the proper way to make a Windows 8 tablet." – techcrunch.com/2012/06/18/will-the-microsoft-surface-tablet-redefine-mobile-computing/
To me, if intended as a "halo device", they have shown the other OEMs precisely what not to do. This "Tweener" is a non-starter, like most overly Tweener devices tend to be.
Embedded Link
Surface: Microsoft, What the Hell is Wrong With You? | ZDNet
Microsoft’s new tablet not only fragments the Windows 8 mobile ecosystem, but also creates strife with its OEMs and will re-ignite negative perc
Google+: View post on Google+
Frankly, this review lost me when it began to rant about how a 10.6" screen is too large. For someone who wants to use this to view technical documents, I'd love a 12" screen, really.
There are a few good points made by the review, though.
As with all things of the sort, YMMV. I suspect for most casual users that the size is beginning to push it. On the other hand, I don't expect the Surface to attract a lot of casual users, but more business use, and there may be a case for a larger, heavier unit such as this.
Well yeah. But most casual users do just fine at seven inches too. If you need ten,you might be better with twelve.
True. And at some point you just go for a tabletop …
Actually, I’ve never had a 17″ monitor/screen, and would be quite happy, given how many apps I tend to have open on my laptop at one time, and switching between them most of that time, to lug that larger laptop.
I edited scientific papers on a MacPlus at JPL, envying the engineers who didn’t really appreciate their considerably larger monitors. You see, I needed to have two dox up side by side…
@Marina – There are a lot of times when I wish I had a wider screen for the document work I do. Alas, the current hardware, other hardware considerations, and locations to work at don’t allow that.
Am I the only one who still uses a desktop computer?
Margie has one at home. Both my folks and the Ks have one, too. I’m not sure what we’ll do with Margie’s next go-around — on the one hand, something more portable might be better for her; on the other hand, a multiple docking station setup above her desk makes no sense.