If true, Microsoft is damning Windows RT tablets before they hit retail

If a new report from Vr-zone.com is accurate, Microsoft could very well be shooting itself in the foot when it comes to marketing their Windows RT (formerly 'Windows on ARM' or 'WOA') tablets. The report states that Microsoft is charging $85-90 per license with $85 being the most common price quoted. 

The damning part of this is that iOS devices pay no licensing fee as they are entirely proprietary products from Apple and Google's Android OS which is free (well, almost), and we have seen how high Android tablets have been aggressively priced. For Microsoft to demand an $85 fee per device puts a major damper on the ability for vendors to achieve low price points that will make the devices attractive alternatives to other tablets, notebooks and convertibles on the market. The source claims that they obtained their information by speaking with vendors at Computex in Taipei; Microsoft typically remains quiet on its pricing for OEMs.

The other advantage that Apple has is economies of scale that help drive down the price of the iPad even when it introduces a new screen, as it did on the third generation iPad. Vendors using Windows RT will not be able to benefit from this efficiency as these products will be a gamble which means that they will likely not order millions upfront like Apple currently can do as it knows it will sell through its inventory. 

The number does - on the face of it - seem a bit high; one channel that Microsoft will be able to leverage as a revenue stream for these products is the Microsoft Store. Any application purchased from this store will benefit Microsoft, why not discount your license to move more units and earn your greenbacks post-sale through the Store? 

If Microsoft does stick to its guns and this information holds true, $85 will be a tough pill to swallow - not for the OEM, but for the consumer as the price will surely be passed along to us. 

Source: Vr-zone.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

TechEd day 2: Keynote highlights in pictures

Next Story

Amazon Cloud music player debuts in App Store

99 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So, let me understand this. They are charging $85 for Windows RT and Office 2013? Doesn't sound like a bad deal if you consider that a retail copy of Windows 7 license and Office 2010 will cost you $309.98 (Newegg pricing).

Damning before they hit retail? Really? Did anybody believe that the OS would be free? I'm only disappointed that you can't just buy it and install it on any ARM-based system that meets the specs. Of course they're going to charge for it, don't be a retard, Brad. Microsoft is a software company, not a hardware company like Apple.

Will be interesting to see where the price point of the windows tablets falls, between the RT tabs and the x86 tablets.

yes it will have the desktop, but that is only for office and ie to use. no one else will have access to the desktop for apps.

As usual, someone is trying to sabotage a product, by spreading fud...
Interrestingly is also, that Windows RT will have a normal Desktop, as shown in channel9/teched videos! :-D

Edited by sorlag, Jun 13 2012, 4:32am :

sorlag said,
As usual, someone is trying to sabotage a product, by spreading fud...
Interrestingly is also, that Windows RT will have a normal Desktop, as shown in channel9/teched videos! :-D

It is the same as the x86 and x64 versions. Microsoft has software distribution restrictions for desktop Applications for parity and security, but there is nothing stopping someone from repacking their desktop App and putting a Metro UI on it. All the Win32 and other frameworks are there and work.

People keep forgetting this is just another build of Windows 8 NT, but for ARM instead of for x86 or for x64. This is not a lighter version like WinCE, it is just recompiled for ARM, and is fully NT through and through.

People that keep comparing it to Android or iOS are really being silly. iOS and Android are specialized and limited OS designs. Android is NOT a full Linux distribution with KDE and XWindows and iOS is not a full version of OS X capable of running high applications.

However, Windows RT is a full version of Windows 8 NT.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/arc...processor-architecture.aspx

Edited by thenetavenger, Jun 13 2012, 6:26am :

thenetavenger said,

It is the same as the x86 and x64 versions. Microsoft has software distribution restrictions for desktop Applications for parity and security, but there is nothing stopping someone from repacking their desktop App and putting a Metro UI on it. All the Win32 and other frameworks are there and work.

People keep forgetting this is just another build of Windows 8 NT, but for ARM instead of for x86 or for x64. This is not a lighter version like WinCE, it is just recompiled for ARM, and is fully NT through and through.

People that keep comparing it to Android or iOS are really being silly. iOS and Android are specialized and limited OS designs. Android is NOT a full Linux distribution with KDE and XWindows and iOS is not a full version of OS X capable of running high applications.

However, Windows RT is a full version of Windows 8 NT.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/arc...processor-architecture.aspx


Youre right, but also there is a normal desktop available for all apps, as this video shows: http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Developing-For-Windows-on-ARM

I will only consider a Windows RT tablet if they can come up with something that is capable as an iPad, twice as sexy and costs half as much. Right now I'm running an HP Touchpad with a dual boot of WebOS and Android 4.0 (CyanogenMod) - for $150 I'm happy with the capabilities and the app selection from the Android store.

Microsoft needs to have comparable tablets for $300-$400 - any more than that there's little reason for people to switch...

GraveDigger27 said,
I will only consider a Windows RT tablet if they can come up with something that is capable as an iPad, twice as sexy and costs half as much. Right now I'm running an HP Touchpad with a dual boot of WebOS and Android 4.0 (CyanogenMod) - for $150 I'm happy with the capabilities and the app selection from the Android store.

Microsoft needs to have comparable tablets for $300-$400 - any more than that there's little reason for people to switch...

I think the price will come in higher than this 300-400 and probably be along the lines of the more expensive ipads on the market. I don't think android is a factor in the tablet market. these are gonna be quad core, high graphics lte enabled devices that will be able to do much more than what the ipads can do.

GraveDigger27 said,
I will only consider a Windows RT tablet if they can come up with something that is capable as an iPad, twice as sexy and costs half as much. Right now I'm running an HP Touchpad with a dual boot of WebOS and Android 4.0 (CyanogenMod) - for $150 I'm happy with the capabilities and the app selection from the Android store.

Microsoft needs to have comparable tablets for $300-$400 - any more than that there's little reason for people to switch...

Or you could have a much faster OS with 100x times the functionality.

Comparing Android to Windows RT is like comparing a TRS80's basic OS to Android. T

his is how different the features and technology is. Windows RT is NT, which is more powerful OS than the best Linux distribution, let alone a JVM based crippled device OS like Android.

Even comparing Windows RT 8 to the iPad is insulting, as it is more powerful and has more features than OS X, let alone the watered down iOS.

Wow...

GraveDigger27 said,
I will only consider a Windows RT tablet if they can come up with something that is capable as an iPad, twice as sexy and costs half as much.

Windows 8 is infinitely more capable than an iPad, and easily at least twice as sexy... it will be well worth the cost.

"Google's Android OS which is free (well, almost)"

Software and hardware just don't integrate themselves - a big tar ball of code does nothing by itself, it requires human intervention to turn it from something useless into something useful. It is about time people dropped this 'free' crap and realised there is nothing for free - either you pay $85 to Microsoft for a turnkey solution OR you grab the source code yourself and do the equal amount in $ when it comes to driver writing, debugging, integration etc. there is no such thing as a free lunch.

When Windows 8 is released and the NT version of Windows Phone you'll see hardware vendors both big and small flock to it - not having to deal with all the crap associated with Android and the Linux kernel will make OEM's lives a lot easier. What I would love to see, however, is for Microsoft to offer Windows RT upgrades for customers who have Android devices so that they can purchase a license to Windows RT and some how replace Android with Windows RT so then users don't have to go out of the way to buy a whole new device.

If a new report from Vr-zone.com is accurate

So a web site nobody has heard of, makes claims without any sources other than they "heard" it may be the price, and you yourself make it known that it may or may not be true as evidenced by your opening line, and this means that Microsoft is "damning" tablets?

Besides, I thought it was good to pay a premium for quality, even if the quality parts are in all the same devices. But when we have real quality options - quad core, non-proprietary ports (USB, etc.), real software like Office rather than WordPad clones - then a premium price is bad?

nohone said,

So a web site nobody has heard of, makes claims without any sources other than they "heard" it may be the price, and you yourself make it known that it may or may not be true as evidenced by your opening line, and this means that Microsoft is "damning" tablets?

Besides, I thought it was good to pay a premium for quality, even if the quality parts are in all the same devices. But when we have real quality options - quad core, non-proprietary ports (USB, etc.), real software like Office rather than WordPad clones - then a premium price is bad?

It is not bad .................... if you can afford to pay it.......................... Of course I would rather drive an Aston Martin than what I drive now but........... I cannot afford it.
Besides if these kind of so called Tablets are supposed to cost around $400, a $80/85 just for the OS is around 20% of the total retail value, very high percentage, no matter what.
Personally I will buy a real Tablet: convertible, Intel based fast processor, full of RAM and disk space because since its inception I use my Tablet as a replacement for the laptop and I guess I will have to spend between $1,500 and $2,000 for such device. Now $80 is just between 5.5% and 4% of the retail value of the device. Big difference.........

Honestly, Neowin needs to some sort of validation before they let people post articles on this site. This article is ridiculous. Just as other's said above, this was already expected, and licensing includes alot more than just the OS itself. Also, on an article previously posted on Neowin itself, said OEMs get a cut from the Marketplace when they promote apps, so this article is dumb and should be removed or changed to an Editorial and renamed to something better than spreading negative bull.

virtorio said,
Wait, you mean Apple doesn't charge themselves a licensing fee for iOS?
Cleaver ba****ds.

+10000000000

Look, I've been a loyal reader of Neowin since the early 2000's, but these articles and "editorials" are starting to get ridiculous.

GoalieStr1 said,

+10000000000

Look, I've been a loyal reader of Neowin since the early 2000's, but these articles and "editorials" are starting to get ridiculous.

A lot about Neowin is starting to go downhill haha. They have had a few quality phone reviews though.

It's obvious manufacturers were expecting a little more support to move inexpensive or what I like to call crippled tablets, better pricing is sort of expected. When people scan prices and look the line up and down at the retail store or Amazon page, they're not going to get past a higher price to discover what a "great deal" having Office included might be. Not really a surprise though is it?

There's already plenty of crippled budget tablets out there. I'm glad to see Microsoft isn't wanting to get into that same game. If I want cheap, I know where to look, thanks.

But many don't use Tablet for office... I for one won't want to create any documents or PowerPoint on the Tablet.... mostly just viewing or some lite edit.... so charged $85 for Office is not worth for some people who don't want it.

I'm going to reply again, I'm ****ed off at Neowin for posting a Baited heading like this. This heading is nothing short of a plug. A real heading would be: Microsoft liscening cost for Windows RT.

Brad Sams said,

Google's Android OS which is free (well, almost)

There's no "almost" about it. It is free. I can download, compile, and run it for free, all within its licence, therefore it's free. Anybody who claims otherwise is playing into Microsoft FUD.

It's like saying GNU/Linux isn't free because Microsoft claims it owns patents which Linux infringes. It's a load of ********. GNU/Linux is free, and so is Android. I suggest you stop spreading Microsoft FUD.

simplezz said,

load of ********. GNU/Linux is free, and so is Android. I suggest you stop spreading Microsoft FUD.

There are costs. I believe Samsung paid a boatload to become a platinum Linux blah blah wtf, I'm done...

Google charges OEMs to be Android vendors You cannot officially use the 'Android' trademark unless vetted by Google. and I believe they charge for the Store and other services

simplezz said,
There's no "almost" about it. It is free. I can download, compile, and run it for free, all within its licence, therefore it's free. Anybody who claims otherwise is playing into Microsoft FUD.

Incorrect, it costs to produce a device with Android.

You have to license out all the particular patents, etc. When you build a WP7 or Windows 8 device, the licensing fee includes all the other patents/etc.

simplezz said,

There's no "almost" about it. It is free. I can download, compile, and run it for free, all within its licence, therefore it's free. Anybody who claims otherwise is playing into Microsoft FUD.

It's like saying GNU/Linux isn't free because Microsoft claims it owns patents which Linux infringes. It's a load of ********. GNU/Linux is free, and so is Android. I suggest you stop spreading Microsoft FUD.

Wow, snorting way too much magical 'Open Source Licensing' Kool-aid, uh?


Lets use ME in your example.

I can download, compile and Run Android for Free. (And we will skip over the fact that the device I am going to run Android on needs a bunch of code modifications and driver changes for now.)

So just downloading and compiling Android and loading it on my device consumes 1 or 2 hrs of time over an automated install of Windows.

I charge money for my time, it has value. So to have Windows automated with the right drivers and code and just load saves me time which equals money.

If I were to buy Windows 7 Ultimate and pay full price, it would STILL be cheaper than taking my time to create an Android build for my machine/device, just in the time difference.


Here is where this makes sense in the argument. Every company that is shipping a device/computer with Android on it, has to SPEND MONEY for developers to adjust code, write/fix driver code, and then compile and build Android EVERY FREAKING TIME Google issues a security fix or update.

Now take a device that this was done for on v1.6 of Android and by the time we are hitting Android 2.2 or 2.3, the repeating of this process, starts to get REALLY expensive in the lifecycle of the product.

This is why Android updates DO NOT happen on the MAJORITY of devices, and users get and have to be stuck with the Android version they bought the device with.


Contrast this with WP7 or Windows RT. Microsoft does all the OS building, compiling, drivers, testing. It also doesn't have to be rebuilt and recompiled from the ground up for every minor update, but even if it did, Microsoft is the one PAYING for this to be done.

So for a one time 'tiny' fee to Microsoft (which with WP7 is sometimes less than the Android patent license fees they have to pay Microsoft anyway), the MFRs no longer have to mess with compiling or developing or distribution of Android and its updates.

(This 'model' is why Windows 3.x won in the 1990s over other OSes and Mac. It allowed MFRS to build hardware and not have to deal with the creating an OS or maintaining it. This is still true today, and why PC makers like Dell that talk how they hate Microsoft and have attempted to do Linux, can't because the development and maintenance costs of an OS is HUGE, and they can't afford to do this when they can pay Microsoft one small price for Windows and not have to worry about the OS ever again, or the security or the update distribution.


FOSS is NOT FREE, nor does the OPEN SOURCE have any REAL relevance. People are conned with the OSS and FOSS movement.

Instead of supporting FOSS, people should be supporting the free sharing and exchange of IDEAS not freaking source code that is specific to one set of operations, and often worthless without the IDEA also shared.

Everyone likes to talk about 'advancing' technology through OPEN SOURCE sharing, but in reality over the past 20 years, Microsoft has contributed more to Technology by a factor of 100x than FOSS just by sharing ideas and design references without ever needing to share specific source code.

Besides, if anyone HAS A BRAIN they can look at Microsoft binaries and READ THEM, as they are just Machine Code, and without 'explanation' are just as useful or not useful as full C++ Open Source.

People today NEEDING and Demanding high level language open source is crazy, because there was a time when everyone was able to read machine code and we didn't need pretty C or C++ just to see what was happening or to recreate the functions.

I would rather have Microsoft keeping NT closed source, and sharing every OS engineering and architectural idea that has come from the NT group, WHICH MICROSOFT DOES. The source code for these Ideas are worthless outside of NT anyway, but the Ideas are golden and can be implemented by anyone wanting to create an OS technology like NT.


I am so tired of the OSS/FOSS is free crap. I am really tired of people thinking it is 'better' or 'magical' when it just is NOT. Google having full control over what goes into Android means that the 'standard' they set RULES the Android world for devices and App compatibility.

Sure you can make your own build of Android, but at the end of the day you have LESS say and influence on the features and functionality of the Google shipped 'standard' version of Android than people have with Windows.

This is where lie behind OSS exists that is always hidden from conversation, just because you can see or use the code and NEED THE higher level language version, doesn't mean it gives you anything. Sure you can modify the code, but you can modify Windows code too.

Remember Windows is just machine code, and I can alter it directly or create software that replaces portions of it (legally) and write software to do whatever I want Windows to do. I don't need to see the source code, and in reality I seldom EVER have need to modify the machine code of Windows.

simplezz said,

There's no "almost" about it. It is free. I can download, compile, and run it for free, all within its licence, therefore it's free. Anybody who claims otherwise is playing into Microsoft FUD.

It's like saying GNU/Linux isn't free because Microsoft claims it owns patents which Linux infringes. It's a load of ********. GNU/Linux is free, and so is Android. I suggest you stop spreading Microsoft FUD.

Except Android "licensees" need to pay about 20 different patent holders money, since Google refuses to officially license them across android to uphold the illusion that android is free for consumers.

They also need to pay google license fees to actually call them android devices and have access to the android marketplace... or play as they stupidly decided to call it.

simplezz said,

There's no "almost" about it. It is free. I can download, compile, and run it for free, all within its licence, therefore it's free. Anybody who claims otherwise is playing into Microsoft FUD.

It's like saying GNU/Linux isn't free because Microsoft claims it owns patents which Linux infringes. It's a load of ********. GNU/Linux is free, and so is Android. I suggest you stop spreading Microsoft FUD.

1) A BIG +1 to thenetavenger for his excellent writeup.

2) While people can download and compile the Android sources, you are forgetting one thing - the OS is free, but if any Android device manufacturer wants to sell a device with Google services, the thing that puts any value into a base Android device, this includes the market, docs, mail, and more, then that device manufacturer needs to pay Google. So while I on my WP7 get Office, Marketplace, Mail, SkyDrive, and so much more for the same price as an Android device, the device manufacturer needs to pay for those same services. NOT free.

3) As for the FUD crap, you are the trolling FUD master him/herself. Any announcement from Microsoft, even if that very same thing is done by Apple or Google themselves, is immediately condemned by you. So climb down off your high horse of claiming that others are spreading FUD, and look at yourself first.

thenetavenger said,

Wow, snorting way too much magical 'Open Source Licensing' Kool-aid, uh?


Lets use ME in your example.

I can download, compile and Run Android for Free. (And we will skip over the fact that the device I am going to run Android on needs a bunch of code modifications and driver changes for now.)

So just downloading and compiling Android and loading it on my device consumes 1 or 2 hrs of time over an automated install of Windows.

I charge money for my time, it has value. So to have Windows automated with the right drivers and code and just load saves me time which equals money.

If I were to buy Windows 7 Ultimate and pay full price, it would STILL be cheaper than taking my time to create an Android build for my machine/device, just in the time difference.


Here is where this makes sense in the argument. Every company that is shipping a device/computer with Android on it, has to SPEND MONEY for developers to adjust code, write/fix driver code, and then compile and build Android EVERY FREAKING TIME Google issues a security fix or update.

Now take a device that this was done for on v1.6 of Android and by the time we are hitting Android 2.2 or 2.3, the repeating of this process, starts to get REALLY expensive in the lifecycle of the product.

This is why Android updates DO NOT happen on the MAJORITY of devices, and users get and have to be stuck with the Android version they bought the device with.


Contrast this with WP7 or Windows RT. Microsoft does all the OS building, compiling, drivers, testing. It also doesn't have to be rebuilt and recompiled from the ground up for every minor update, but even if it did, Microsoft is the one PAYING for this to be done.

So for a one time 'tiny' fee to Microsoft (which with WP7 is sometimes less than the Android patent license fees they have to pay Microsoft anyway), the MFRs no longer have to mess with compiling or developing or distribution of Android and its updates.

(This 'model' is why Windows 3.x won in the 1990s over other OSes and Mac. It allowed MFRS to build hardware and not have to deal with the creating an OS or maintaining it. This is still true today, and why PC makers like Dell that talk how they hate Microsoft and have attempted to do Linux, can't because the development and maintenance costs of an OS is HUGE, and they can't afford to do this when they can pay Microsoft one small price for Windows and not have to worry about the OS ever again, or the security or the update distribution.


FOSS is NOT FREE, nor does the OPEN SOURCE have any REAL relevance. People are conned with the OSS and FOSS movement.

Instead of supporting FOSS, people should be supporting the free sharing and exchange of IDEAS not freaking source code that is specific to one set of operations, and often worthless without the IDEA also shared.

Everyone likes to talk about 'advancing' technology through OPEN SOURCE sharing, but in reality over the past 20 years, Microsoft has contributed more to Technology by a factor of 100x than FOSS just by sharing ideas and design references without ever needing to share specific source code.

Besides, if anyone HAS A BRAIN they can look at Microsoft binaries and READ THEM, as they are just Machine Code, and without 'explanation' are just as useful or not useful as full C++ Open Source.

People today NEEDING and Demanding high level language open source is crazy, because there was a time when everyone was able to read machine code and we didn't need pretty C or C++ just to see what was happening or to recreate the functions.

I would rather have Microsoft keeping NT closed source, and sharing every OS engineering and architectural idea that has come from the NT group, WHICH MICROSOFT DOES. The source code for these Ideas are worthless outside of NT anyway, but the Ideas are golden and can be implemented by anyone wanting to create an OS technology like NT.


I am so tired of the OSS/FOSS is free crap. I am really tired of people thinking it is 'better' or 'magical' when it just is NOT. Google having full control over what goes into Android means that the 'standard' they set RULES the Android world for devices and App compatibility.

Sure you can make your own build of Android, but at the end of the day you have LESS say and influence on the features and functionality of the Google shipped 'standard' version of Android than people have with Windows.

This is where lie behind OSS exists that is always hidden from conversation, just because you can see or use the code and NEED THE higher level language version, doesn't mean it gives you anything. Sure you can modify the code, but you can modify Windows code too.

Remember Windows is just machine code, and I can alter it directly or create software that replaces portions of it (legally) and write software to do whatever I want Windows to do. I don't need to see the source code, and in reality I seldom EVER have need to modify the machine code of Windows.

Amen to that. That's cool s**t browser

I'm not sure how a licensing fee directly correlates to iOS being better because it doesn't - of course it doesn't have a licensing fee, no-one can license iOS. Sure Apple don't make an iOS profit they make a double all in "iPad" profit... which i suspect is far far greater than $85.

The real advantage Windows has over Apple is that they license their software and it can be installed on multiple devices - this is probably it's greatest asset yet is completely missed in the entire article.

lt8480 said,

The real advantage Windows has over Apple is that they license their software and it can be installed on multiple devices - this is probably it's greatest asset yet is completely missed in the entire article.

You mean multiple OEMs? Windows 8 RT will not be available in the retail channels.

MS can charge whatever they want for Windows-8 for use on tablets. However, MS needs to realize that smartphones and tablets is the only venue for which Windows-8 was designed. So, if MS decides to charge too much, OEM won't include it with their devices. iPads will look that much more attractive. Hey, if MS chooses to forfeit business, that's their call to make.

TsarNikky said,
MS can charge whatever they want for Windows-8 for use on tablets. However, MS needs to realize that smartphones and tablets is the only venue for which Windows-8 was designed. So, if MS decides to charge too much, OEM won't include it with their devices. iPads will look that much more attractive. Hey, if MS chooses to forfeit business, that's their call to make.

No it's not, the start screen was also designed for mouse and keyboard and works great on it, better than the old start menu. maybe if you actually gave it an unbiased try without the "it sucks" attitude before you even tried it.

HawkMan said,

No it's not, the start screen was also designed for mouse and keyboard and works great on it, better than the old start menu. maybe if you actually gave it an unbiased try without the "it sucks" attitude before you even tried it.


this, at first I was like 'wth, ill just add back the win7 start menu' and now I love it. much is just hidden from sight until you actually need it, desktop ismuch clearer without that wasted space.
actually would love to see if they could make the titlebars of applications like the taskbar hide
and possibility to put metro apps windowed would be great, the choice of using them on desktop. I don't always want to read pdfs fullscreen ,got 3 screens, it aint that bad. but somehow I have a feeling metro would be less good to use on single monitor setups

Once again, someone has a motive for this obviously-skewed (anti-Microsoft) post - the assumption is that Windows RT = Android, which is far from true. First off, can you even RUN Google Apps on Android (any version)? Second, the lowest-end (current) Office version is Office Home and Business, which alone costs more than $85 (from what I'm seeing so far, Office RT includes the same applications as Office H&B) so that means that, since Office RT and Windows RT are packaged together, at that price, one OR the other is free. Even if the pricing held up, that alone still means that Windows RT has value that Android lacks - because it has a feature that every version of Android lacks. Windows RT is competing on value (not price) with Android tablets - the price competition with Windows RT is the iPad 2 and later.

The flipside could be, like Android phones, MS just might sell tons of tablets just because they are NOT Apples. I have ZERO interest in a tablet, but I will be all over a touch screen Ultrabook as long as they don't slap me too hard.

Just $85? On same device, same performance, I'll buying an Windows RT device.
Android's big drawback is vender's support. If vender has decision drop support(os upgrade), we can't do anything. It's a serious problem and that's why I'm dislike Android.

I think, Writer of this article doesn't knew value of software. Is it priceless?

They can charge what they like, unless RT Tablets cost significantly more than Android tablets, Windows RT is going to be a smashing success. If vendors can deliver WindowsRT Tabs for < $400 it's going to be massive.

You seem to forget that the Windows RT license includes Office 2013

the x86 version of office 2010 home costs $129

So $90 for windows + office is cheap!

Since Office is NOT coming to iPad (the upcoming office for iPad is actually just an Office Viewer), this makes Windows RT competitive even if devices are more expansive than the iPad.

link8506 said,
You seem to forget that the Windows RT license includes Office 2013

the x86 version of office 2010 home costs $129

So $90 for windows + office is cheap!

Since Office is NOT coming to iPad (the upcoming office for iPad is actually just an Office Viewer), this makes Windows RT competitive even if devices are more expansive than the iPad.

Android has a bit of a head start, there's free office suit out there for android compatiable with the new office formats (Kingsoft Office) plus Google bought an mobile office suite to probably try and counter Microsoft Office Mobile version.

However, a Office 2010 Ribbon / Metro interface (that actually works...) would give them an advantage. Cost will be a factor be it free, low priced, or expensive.

Jason Stillion said,

Android has a bit of a head start, there's free office suit out there for android compatiable with the new office formats (Kingsoft Office) plus Google bought an mobile office suite to probably try and counter Microsoft Office Mobile version.


I don't what anyone says but those "free" versions of Office applications are NO comparison to the real thing.

link8506 said,
You seem to forget that the Windows RT license includes Office 2013

the x86 version of office 2010 home costs $129

So $90 for windows + office is cheap!

Since Office is NOT coming to iPad (the upcoming office for iPad is actually just an Office Viewer), this makes Windows RT competitive even if devices are more expansive than the iPad.

Why doesn't MS just come out with two different versions with the option to make Office optional?

ahhell said,

I don't what anyone says but those "free" versions of Office applications are NO comparison to the real thing.

And what exactly does Microsoft Office offer that the free alternatives don't pray tell?

For the average user, there's no difference. I use LibreOffice on my desktop and OpenOffice Document Reader on my tablet.

simplezz said,

And what exactly does Microsoft Office offer that the free alternatives don't pray tell?

For the average user, there's no difference. I use LibreOffice on my desktop and OpenOffice Document Reader on my tablet.

Interface, Libreoffice or open office looks like it comes from 90's, which is a big reason why i dont touch them. Office 2003 used to be confusing, but after 2007 version, the UI is getting better and better, yet very easy to use.

simrat said,
Interface, Libreoffice or open office looks like it comes from 90's, which is a big reason why i dont touch them. Office 2003 used to be confusing, but after 2007 version, the UI is getting better and better, yet very easy to use.

Don't forget slow, horribly bloated memory usage, some compatibility issues with documents, doesn't have all the features, no Outlook, OneNote, InfoPath, Visio, SharePoint knockoffs, etc.

simplezz said,

And what exactly does Microsoft Office offer that the free alternatives don't pray tell?

For the average user, there's no difference. I use LibreOffice on my desktop and OpenOffice Document Reader on my tablet.

For the average user:
It just works as expected
It looks good
it works good
Ribbon that works great dna helps them be better
it can actually open and save office formats without effing them up and loosing half the document in the process
it has proper support

The the pro user:
IT looks better
Works better
Ribbon
can properly save and open office files

The regular user is the one more likely to be annoyed and confused by the crap that is libre.

Max Norris said,

Don't forget slow, horribly bloated memory usage, some compatibility issues with documents, doesn't have all the features, no Outlook, OneNote, InfoPath, Visio, SharePoint knockoffs, etc.

slow? you must be using single core. P IV or lower. Office is smooth as a babies bottom, one downside is, it takes a whole 10-15sec load the first time (then until its cache runs out, it starts almost instantly). Office doesn't have all the features? It comes with Outlook, Onenote is also included. SharePoint, DUDE that's a webbased system. its from Windows Server, not Office

Shadowzz said,

slow? you must be using single core. P IV or lower. Office is smooth as a babies bottom, one downside is, it takes a whole 10-15sec load the first time (then until its cache runs out, it starts almost instantly). Office doesn't have all the features? It comes with Outlook, Onenote is also included. SharePoint, DUDE that's a webbased system. its from Windows Server, not Office

He was talking about the office knockoffs being slow, like Office Libre and NachoOffice.

Shadowzz said,

slow? you must be using single core. P IV or lower. Office is smooth as a babies bottom, one downside is, it takes a whole 10-15sec load the first time (then until its cache runs out, it starts almost instantly). Office doesn't have all the features? It comes with Outlook, Onenote is also included. SharePoint, DUDE that's a webbased system. its from Windows Server, not Office

He was talking about Open Office and LibreOffice, not Microsoft Office.
Do you actually read stuff? Another misunderstatement happened in the Windows 8 USB boot article.
I have to agree by the way. These open source alternatives are great s**t. It frustrates the hell out of me each time I (have to) use it.

link8506 said,
You seem to forget that the Windows RT license includes Office 2013

the x86 version of office 2010 home costs $129

So $90 for windows + office is cheap!

Since Office is NOT coming to iPad (the upcoming office for iPad is actually just an Office Viewer), this makes Windows RT competitive even if devices are more expansive than the iPad.

You forgot to mention that the Office version pre-installed does not have Outlook and other apps, it will include: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote.

link8506 said,
You seem to forget that the Windows RT license includes Office 2013

the x86 version of office 2010 home costs $129

So $90 for windows + office is cheap!

Since Office is NOT coming to iPad (the upcoming office for iPad is actually just an Office Viewer), this makes Windows RT competitive even if devices are more expansive than the iPad.

You forgot to mention that the Office version pre-installed does not have Outlook and other apps, it will include: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote.

Omen1393 said,

Why doesn't MS just come out with two different versions with the option to make Office optional?


They did, it's called home, professional, and ultimate. I know it's not about office but ppl still complain about Microsoft release too many different version. Why can't everyone treat Window like apple in term of OS such as 1 version of Lion

Fritzly said,

You forgot to mention that the Office version pre-installed does not have Outlook and other apps, it will include: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote.

... exactly like the $129 "Home" edition of Office I was referering to!

"The damning part of this is that iOS devices pay no licensing fee as they are entirely proprietary products from Apple and Google's Android OS which is free (well, almost), and we have seen how high Android tablets have been aggressively priced."

Since apple makes it's own hardware and software, you don't even have to mention Apple pay's no licensing fee's or at least the way you did it. Since Apple makes the hardware and software bringing this in to the conversation is a bit irrelevant.

I do see your over all point, from a manufacture perspective (Google vs Microsoft) Google makes it cheaper to manufacture your product which gives them an edge and Microsoft can afford to eat the cost to try and spur adoption.

Ci7 said,
You expect them to give it away for free?

what price is a good price then?

Who expects that?

It's simply a very dubious marketing strategy when the competition has free licensing, either way the OEM chooses to handle it, they lose out, which means they will be less likely to adopt any meaningful amount of Windows RT-based tablets. (Which also means the consumer and Microsoft loses out)

Kinda defeats the purpose if Microsoft wants into the Tablet market.

FISKER_Q said,

Who expects that?

It's simply a very dubious marketing strategy when the competition has free licensing, either way the OEM chooses to handle it, they lose out, which means they will be less likely to adopt any meaningful amount of Windows RT-based tablets. (Which also means the consumer and Microsoft loses out)

Kinda defeats the purpose if Microsoft wants into the Tablet market.

I don't see Android or iOS giving away Office with their products. Stop complaing, Windows and Office both cost money. Or better yet, start your own OS and give it away for free, see how would that work out.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

I don't see Android or iOS giving away Office with their products. Stop complaing, Windows and Office both cost money. Or better yet, start your own OS and give it away for free, see how would that work out.

Google have Google Drive (Previously Docs) which is free, and comes with much of the functionality of office, granted, the mobile version is lacking, but they've recently acquired QuickOffice to change that. I won't speak for iOS as i don't use it.

Either way, it's not a complaint, simply a statement of the facts, and their potential, and in my opinion, likely outcome by doing so.

FISKER_Q said,

Google have Google Drive (Previously Docs) which is free, and comes with much of the functionality of office, granted, the mobile version is lacking, but they've recently acquired QuickOffice to change that. I won't speak for iOS as i don't use it.

Either way, it's not a complaint, simply a statement of the facts, and their potential, and in my opinion, likely outcome by doing so.

Giving away IE Explorer and Outlook worked well for MS, didn't it?...................

FISKER_Q said,

Google have Google Drive (Previously Docs) which is free, and comes with much of the functionality of office, granted, the mobile version is lacking, but they've recently acquired QuickOffice to change that. I won't speak for iOS as i don't use it.

Either way, it's not a complaint, simply a statement of the facts, and their potential, and in my opinion, likely outcome by doing so.

Giving away IE Explorer and Outlook worked well for MS, didn't it?...................

With office bundle in? $85? That's a discount. PC nowadays don't even include office. Remember office cost $300 full not upgrade

minster11 said,
With office bundle in? $85? That's a discount. PC nowadays don't even include office. Remember office cost $300 full not upgrade

You mean... that's a discount if you actually NEED IT on a tablet, but what if you don't?

Luis Mazza said,
You mean... that's a discount if you actually NEED IT on a tablet, but what if you don't?

Buy whatever's in the bargain bin at WalMart?

minster11 said,
With office bundle in? $85? That's a discount. PC nowadays don't even include office. Remember office cost $300 full not upgrade

Seriously, Microsoft doesn't have to 'buy' office from another company or even have to produce packaging or media. This costs them NOTHING to add it to Windows RT.

People that keep thinking the cost has anything to do with Office are not thinking this out logically.

It would be like complaining that Notepad and MSPaint make Windows TOO expensive. Think how silly this sounds.

It is a nice 'bonus' for Windows RT to help sell the tablets.

The pricing being floated is VERY suspect, as these sources are not from MFRs that are initial Windows RT tablet providers.

thenetavenger said,

Seriously, Microsoft doesn't have to 'buy' office from another company or even have to produce packaging or media. This costs them NOTHING to add it to Windows RT.

People that keep thinking the cost has anything to do with Office are not thinking this out logically.

It would be like complaining that Notepad and MSPaint make Windows TOO expensive. Think how silly this sounds.

It is a nice 'bonus' for Windows RT to help sell the tablets.

The pricing being floated is VERY suspect, as these sources are not from MFRs that are initial Windows RT tablet providers.


its free? so office should be free for all windows users? they don't have a huge team working on Office at all? why charge for office to begin with right?
oh yeah, wait, its one of their flagship products, no income from office, is 1 massive gap of income loss for MS. This loss of income shall be taken from other divisions to make more money. We all want MS to start selling our private information like google, don't we

and comparing notepad/mspaint to office... your hilarious man

Luis Mazza said,

You mean... that's a discount if you actually NEED IT on a tablet, but what if you don't?

You don't use even excel? That's the best office, I do my home expense tracking, calculate mortgage interest etc. Easy to customize my own then buying those apps. Oh well...

Enron said,
Vendors will make up the difference in cost by preloading junkware.

Office 2013 is also junkware for people who don't need it, but is actually worse because you pay for that even if you don't want to.
I mean... who Microsoft wants to use a tablet to do serious work?
Most iPad buyers never use it to produce real content and companies can afford to pay for a separete suite if they need it.

Consumers will have to pay for overpriced tablets and Microsoft will kill Win RT so fast that Apple is not even worried about that.

Luis Mazza said,

Office 2013 is also junkware for people who don't need it, but is actually worse because you pay for that even if you don't want to.
I mean... who Microsoft wants to use a tablet to do serious work?
Most iPad buyers never use it to produce real content and companies can afford to pay for a separete suite if they need it.

Consumers will have to pay for overpriced tablets and Microsoft will kill Win RT so fast that Apple is not even worried about that.

Office has NO effect on the Windows RT pricing. Microsoft does make Office and don't have to charge themselves to load bits for free.

thenetavenger said,

Office has NO effect on the Windows RT pricing. Microsoft does make Office and don't have to charge themselves to load bits for free.


Hmmm...
Free? For them it's costing money though and you can bet they try to get those dollars back again.

So, what's costing them how much? I don't know how much, but here's a quick thought of what we should consider:

-Support
-Maintenance
-Development
-Backend services need to be maintained and operated (cloud services)

Yes, some of that they will hand the bill to their clients for, like some support options are not free I assume, but you see what I mean.

GS:mac

thenetavenger said,

Office has NO effect on the Windows RT pricing. Microsoft does make Office and don't have to charge themselves to load bits for free.


LOL
Yeah right.You cerainly know that, don't you? The evidence is clear.

GoalieStr1 said,
What did I just read...? Yes, MS charges for liscenses. No. It's not "damning".

Yes it is, 'cause the license fees are way over the top. MS are trying to get into the tablet/mobile market with an OS the costs 85$, whereas the competition is either proprietary(iOS) or free (Android)...

GoalieStr1 said,
What did I just read...? Yes, MS charges for liscenses. No. It's not "damning".

Read again: the article is not about MS charging for the OS but how much is charging dor the OS.
Congratulations.............. Comments defines the writers..............

GoalieStr1 said,
What did I just read...? Yes, MS charges for liscenses. No. It's not "damning".

The smart thing to do would be release it for cheap/free to manufacturers and gain the losses back with the store sales cut that they take. Yes it will take longer but they're likely to have a more profitable store from the start because more manufacturers will be able to make cheaper tablets and sell more of them.

GoalieStr1 said,
What did I just read...? Yes, MS charges for liscenses. No. It's not "damning".

I disagree. Very few tablets are going to run Windows 8 if it puts their tablet price out of range of being competitive.

This is just typical Microsoft, what they have done for many many years... jack up the price of their software to some insane amount. Things like this are the very reason why Warez has existed over the years. Its also things like this, why Microsoft has been found guilty numerous times, from different judges, of stealing from customers through overpriced software.

I love that story jd. Cause all those customers were coerced to purchase it instead of choosing cheaper (or free) alternatives. Or stealing it as it sounds like you have done.

jd100 said,

I disagree. Very few tablets are going to run Windows 8 if it puts their tablet price out of range of being competitive.

This is just typical Microsoft, what they have done for many many years... jack up the price of their software to some insane amount. Things like this are the very reason why Warez has existed over the years. Its also things like this, why Microsoft has been found guilty numerous times, from different judges, of stealing from customers through overpriced software.

It has worked well for Apple for years.