Editorial

Surface called one of the "most overpriced gadgets of all time," we rebuff

When you see the click-friendly headline of "The Most 15 Overpriced Gadgets of All Time", you know the story will be filled with such notables as the Apple Lisa that cost $10,000 or the Nokia Booklet, but the Surface?

Here's the deal: Laptop Magazine constructed an article that highlights some of the most overpriced gadgets since the beginning of time. One of the items to make the list is Microsoft's Surface with Windows RT. Now, we're not ones to defend Microsoft at every turn, but to call the Surface one of the most overpriced gadgets of all time (of all time!), is a bit hard to swallow.

First off, the author compares the $499 price of the 16GB iPad to the 32 GB version of the Surface, both of which cost $499. While we know the issue of the OS taking up a substantial portion of the available storage is a relevant argument, it still does not offer a level straight comparison. At this point, it would be a better argument to say that the 32GB Surface and the 32GB iPad are a better comparison, in this situation, the iPad costs $100 more than the Surface.

The author then goes on to attack the price of the Touch/Type cover:

However, you may want the Surface because of its heavily-advertised Touch Cover keyboard, a must-have accessory that will set you back an extra $119, even though it costs Microsoft only $16 to manufacture. That’s $619 for a new, unproven tablet that trails the $499 market leader in most ways.

Microsoft does heavily promote the Touch/Type cover as an essential accessory but if you are planning on purchasing the accessory when you buy the device, a bundle  package is offered that makes the Surface+cover total $599. If you were paying attention earlier, $599 is the same price as the 32GB iPad which makes the playing field level.

In addition, Windows RT comes with Office installed; apparently the author doesn't think adds any value to the device.

So, is the Surface one of the 15 most overpriced gadgets in the history of the modern era? Doubtful. We could argue that if the price is lower, it would move more units (obvious statement), but to call out the device as being egregiously overpriced is a statement designed for click-baiting.

Source: Laptop Magazine

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Man blackmailed after having a sex session on Skype

Next Story

NORAD releases official Windows 8 app to track Santa

111 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

iPhone 5 32GB - 40000 p. / $1300
iPad 4 32GB Wifi+3G - 32000 p. / $1030

Just one! iPad 4 was sold on a first half day after launch back on 6th december.

Seems like Avram Piltch completely forgot about Apple existence.

So the Surface is to expensive @ $499 for its capability, but the iPad isn't? Oh wait. Only us smart people think the iPad for what it does cost to much.

Here is why the Surface is better at the same price tag. More capable. The Surface with Windows supports all online media protocol. Including HTML5, Flash and more. The iPad claims to support HTML5, but scores lower on many tests.

USB port for using external keyboards, flash drives and mice. For the iPad to use ANY of those, you have to buy some expensive adapter which is expensive just because its for Apple products.

Microsoft Office is included free. Seeing that Office Student Edition is $120 for the stand-alone product, getting it free inside the Surface is huge.

The Surface is made of a fancier more expensive material. The iPAd is made od Aluminum while the Surface uses Magnesium and other alloys which uses a much costlier process to produce.

I don't think it's overpriced generally speaking. The value add to me is Office. However, the touch cover prices have ridiculous mark up. At $500, why can't the touch cover be included? There should be a $399.99 version sans Office and touch cover. That'd make Surface priced to move.

Article for articles sake. The guy obviously had a grievance against the product from the get go.

The Surface, while out of my price league, isn't an overly expensive item for what it is and what it does.

This guy has no clue. He's comparing it to iOS and Android, which are Tablet OS, "Microsoft had four years to study Android and more than five to examine iOS, but still couldn't build a usable tablet experience" but he is testing Windows 8 on a desktop "after using Windows 8 on a Dell (DELL) XPS One All-in-One desktop PC". Fail.

Its the same price, and even more depending, than the current market leader so yes it is overpriced. Nobody will buy it.

too close to say that.. cost wise
and this story made some fair points showing how the comparison was not fair.
its nice to see people step back and look at what is there and not what they want to see because of brand name bias.

regardless of whether i want a surface or not i found this story interesting
and fair is fair if the surface is a better deal / value then by all means shout it from the roof tops lol

I will start my comment by saying I am a biased Microsoft fan and love Surface........however

They are about 100 to 150 dollars overpriced, Microsoft should have traded profits for market share like they did with the Xbox.

The fact the device is wifi only not 3G/4G/LTE should be reflected in the price which it isn't

Surface and Windows 8 are very close to a homerun and hopefully they finish the products via updates or a service pack before its too late.

Sl@yer said,
I will start my comment by saying I am a biased Microsoft fan and love Surface........however

They are about 100 to 150 dollars overpriced, Microsoft should have traded profits for market share like they did with the Xbox.

The fact the device is wifi only not 3G/4G/LTE should be reflected in the price which it isn't

Surface and Windows 8 are very close to a homerun and hopefully they finish the products via updates or a service pack before its too late.

Three things of note to remember. A.) They didn't want to undercut their device partners as they aren't trying to steal business from them. And, B.) This comes with Office Home and Student 2013 which will be at least $120. C.) Surface RT cost less than most high-end smartphones off-contract.

If you take only the last two items, Surface RT cost less than a Galaxy SIII, Lumia 920, and both iPhone 5 models when comparing retail to retail. On top of that, subtract the probable cost of around $120 for Office Home and Student 2013 from the $499 cost of the Surface RT and you get a price of $379. Now, one can argue that they would purchase it for $379 and grab a copy of Office later if they wanted. Which is certainly a valid argument. However, the bottom line is... considering everything the Surface RT can currently and potentially do, $499 isn't overpriced, relatively speaking.

Anecdotally, the reason I wouldn't purchase an iPad is because it's essentially a giant phone that can't make actual phone calls. If I buy something of that size I want something that can do more than a phone, personally.

I personally think that Surface is a pointless hybrid that will tank and Windows 8 the worst windows made in the history of Windows but even though it's a bit expensive for what it gives you neither Surface Pro or Surface with metro only are definitely not mindblowingly expensive.

This claim in the article is way overblown.

At first I thought "BS", $599 isn't THAT expensive for a computer that can do the basics with ease. But maybe the author understands that while RT Office is a nice plus, there really isn't any software compared to Android and Apple. Microsoft is pricing at a premium when it should be introducing their "new" RT line at a lower price to offer an incentive to early adopters who know it or not are taking a risk, they could very likely end up like Zune users. Microsoft doesn't enjoy the admiration of it's customers like Apple did when they started but they refuse to admit that and it's why they fail on so many fronts, if it weren't for their sheer size they would have been out of business after the first couple of disasters.

Hahaiah said,
At first I thought "BS", $599 isn't THAT expensive for a computer that can do the basics with ease. But maybe the author understands that while RT Office is a nice plus, there really isn't any software compared to Android and Apple. Microsoft is pricing at a premium when it should be introducing their "new" RT line at a lower price to offer an incentive to early adopters who know it or not are taking a risk, they could very likely end up like Zune users. Microsoft doesn't enjoy the admiration of it's customers like Apple did when they started but they refuse to admit that and it's why they fail on so many fronts, if it weren't for their sheer size they would have been out of business after the first couple of disasters.

What software is it missing?

oh comon, the surface even at $499 you have to figure it has a full office suite in it home and student costs about $140 on average... that makes the device cost $359 if you had to buy it yourself... for $359 it's a pretty good device considering how its made, the features it has, and the fact it has stuff like USB and expandable storage... stuff that well the iPad doesn't have, sure screen res is nice, but for the average person they wont look at the screen and go OMG THAT PIXEL IS LARGER!

Ridiculous. But bashing MS is always gonna get applause from the wannabe 1337 crowd. Has the author ever heard of Vertu phones, just as an example?

Auch said,
What about diamonds?

Yeh but there a girls best friend and can help you get laid Now just imagine what a diamond encrusted Surface Pro could do...

I wonder if the "journalist" finds Apple products value for money?

If the Surface is a rip-off, then any Apple by product by comparison is surely unethically extortionate, which they borderline are to any rational person anyway.

You are buying a fully working computer for $500, plus an optionally attachable keyboard for an additional $100 (you can get the black one bundled with it for $100 extra, and not $120). The only difference between this computer and a normal PC is the limitation imposed by requiring ARM compatibility. Over time, this will only improve. In particular, I suspect that the next iteration of the Surface will have a much more powerful ARM processor, which will only enable more powerful tools, and I suspect that's when development tools will actually appear onto the Surface.

I have replaced my laptop with my Surface with one exception: software development tools. I suspect that they are all a bit processor intensive for the Surface anyway, which would only give a poor experience. Which doesn't really matter anyway, as I use a desktop for development anyway.

On the other hand, my iPad 2 does nothing but play games and allow's me to fire up the web browser if it happens to be the closer device. I never even hooked in my email onto my iPad because it doesn't support multiple users (considering the haters are outnumbering the lovers, I guess none of the haters here shares a device, right?). I don't put files onto my iPad, because I can't plug a thumb drive into to do it, and it's explicitly up to apps to allow me to work with said files, or they're simply sitting in storage for no purpose anyway with no simple mechanism for accessing them. And while we're on the topic of storage, I don't have to worry about storage on my Surface because, even though the OS and Office take up a significant amount of space, I have 28 GB of free storage from Skydrive (25 GB for having the account for a long time, and 3 GB free for getting the Surface at launch), which is freely usable within each app that uses files--without any work from the developer (it's just in the file browser automatically plugged in once the Surface owner plugs in their Surface account, which means DropBox can do the exact same thing for even more storage)! Finally, I can even add more storage with a 64 GB microSD card if I so chose. Which iPad can I do that on?

There has only been one game on my Surface where I wished it had support for a high DPI monitor and, amusingly, it's a classically stylized game (Jetpack Joyride for those interested). But, you know what? Microsoft hasn't built their own chips for the past few years, and it would likely destroy the battery life of their device to force it where it didn't work. Beyond random games, ClearType and being a high quality IPS panel let the "low resolution" screen do what it's good at.

People that hate on the Surface fit into a couple camps:

1. People that have never used the Surface.
2. People that have no technical knowledge.
3. People that hate Microsoft.
4. People that look at specs and think that ends the conversation (see #1).

What's holding back the Surface is weak distribution. Throw in the Surface Pro next month, and I can literally replace my laptop with a Surface (which then includes most development that can live within the confines of the 4 GB of RAM and processor, which is most of it). I will most likely buy one and give my Surface to my fiance.

So what do you really think. :-)

I think people are "savvy" enough to research any gadget from sources they trust and judge whether it's for them or not with some accuracy. I don't have to physically use a surface to know I won't suddenly start liking what I now don't just because I can touch it. If "technical knowledge" is required, then that's simply another flaw. It's great that you like it, but your "analysis" is ridiculous.

Hahaiah said,
I think people are "savvy" enough to research any gadget from sources they trust and judge whether it's for them or not with some accuracy. I don't have to physically use a surface to know I won't suddenly start liking what I now don't just because I can touch it.
I definitely disagree on both counts. In general, people have no idea what is good about computers, or smartphones, even after reading tons of reviews. Further, many reviews start with a very strong bias. Take for example Neowin: you can generally expect a pro-Microsoft slant from the stories, and a mix of pro-and-anti-Microsoft posts from posters. Then, take Engadget for example: you can generally expect a very pro-Android slant from the stories, and a wide mix of comments (though I rarely read comments on Engadget because of their general level of intelligence). Just taking a look at their recent write-up's starting sentence in their conclusion of the Surface Pro is a joke:

Engadget said,
Unfortunately for Microsoft at this point, apps are more key to selling devices than operating system features.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/1...nd-men-and-the-surface-pro/

The Surface Pro is a fully functional Windows PC with complete tablet functionality. What app can there possibly be that it doesn't support? Who is supporting the Android tablet market before supporting Windows, as a whole (not even Metro)? Considering the state of the Android tablet market, I can safely say, not many people are.

Hahaiah said,
If "technical knowledge" is required, then that's simply another flaw.
Technical knowledge is in no way required to use or enjoy the Surface. It's simply a requirement for people making wild claims about what the Surface should do, and why it should do more (e.g., one of the most widespread complaints is the lack of x86 compatibility, made by people that clearly have no idea what that actually entails), which they then use to start a faux list of fake problems for the Surface. After all, I don't recall seeing those same "reviewers" (whether in an official capacity or not) complaining that the iPad cannot run Mac OS X apps, or that Android tablets cannot run any mainstream OS applications.

It's frustrating to see a device, and a company for that matter, being berated by people that have simply latched onto some arbitrary reason to hate it. Beit that you're pro Apple or Google, it doesn't hurt anyone to admit that the Surface might actually be good. In fact, it only serves as good competition that should force Apple's hand to push even more innovation (after all, they literally created the demand for tablets even though XP-based tablets existed for far longer). Even better, they may actually be forced to give you a modest degree of control rather than having a bunch of apps that have no serious way to work together (aka, file system support rather than a 100% sandboxed environment with modest interapp communication).

Finally, it's obviously okay that some people just don't like Windows 8. Just as many people don't like iOS or don't like Android, there will be people that simply don't see the appeal of Windows 8 and Metro. Only that person can say whether they are making that decision honestly. You may very well be in that camp, but the fact is that you did not give a single reason that my so-called "analysis" was ridiculous, and I can only guess as to why.

Gotta love the gigantic fanboy wall of text lol

Here is another camp for you,

-people that hate the surface because it has a horrible UI, its overpriced and its underspecced

How is that?

Sonne said,
people that hate the iPad because it has a horrible UI, its overpriced and its underspecced

How is that?

Now that makes sense.

Sonne said,
Gotta love the gigantic fanboy
Your avatar (user icon) is for Apple.

I am undeniably a fan, but I separate myself from fanboys because I can actually see the bad with the good. I own a MacBook Pro that does not dual boot because, frankly, I have no need for it to boot into Windows (and OS X uses less of its battery given that they have the benefit of optimization).

Sonne said,
people that hate the surface because it has a horrible UI
I'll accept that camp, as that's a valid camp to be in: people that simply don't like the UI.

Sonne said,
its overpriced
Why?

Sonne said,
its underspecced

Thank you for representing the #2 camp.

Auch said,
While that wall of text hurts, how do you feel so far about this change from x86 existing Win apps perspective?
As a software engineer myself, I personally don't really see the need for something to be an app versus a full blown application. I think the only serious differentiation should be the desire to have floating windows (modeless) or larger scoped applications that do more than their implied title, which is required for interaction within a sandboxed context, but not in a full OS. Generally speaking though, you are probably leading away from touch-friendliness if you make it an application rather than an app.

In general, I prefer separation because it should help lead to apps that are good at a few things, and in Windows 8, they can still play with each other's files, as they are not limited by a sandbox with file interaction.

For example, I feel like the Music app is perfect for being an app; I strongly prefer what it is to the monolithic alternative, which includes its former incarnations as the Zune application definitely over Windows Media Player. The nature of it lends itself to not becoming bloated like Windows Media Player, iTunes (prior to version 11; I have not looked at it since before, but I heard the upgrade brought it back down to size), and even Zune.

At the end of the day though, with a few exceptions for completely proprietary applications, it pretty much boils down to how you want the app to look. I personally prefer things in a maximized screen (that includes normal windows applications being maximized as it allows them to be adjusted a little more than apps) more than floating windows because I see the rest as wasted space,

Auch said,
Sure my remark is irrelevant if you need expensive typewriting machine or www browsing device.

There's absolutely nothing inherent about x86 that means it needs to be an application, nor does it mean it needs to be an app. Particularly with the ability to split the screen for apps, it completely comes down to what the app[lication] does (and how the writers want it to work), and not how it is written.

Jose_49 said,
The price of the Surface is justified with Office 2013 RT, which is valued in around 130$

A price Microsoft made up themselves.

Jose_49 said,
The price of the Surface is justified with Office 2013 RT, which is valued in around 130$

I rather take a version without office and save 130$.

It may cost 16 dollars to manufacture the touch keyboard but believe it or not a lot of money goes into research and development which they recover from the high profit margins they put on their products.

not to mention the fact that many smartphones are close to, if not more expensive than, the surface's price off contract O.O the article overlooks a lot of things in comparing the surface to the ipad

The price is very good if it was competing with the iPad years ago, the current hardware I slower than the iPad, the screen is less resolution than the iPad, the software (it is up to your opinion to compare)
A much more advanced hardware is sold for much lower on the play store as well.

What? Hardware is slower than iPad? The iPad only has better screen, and only the rear camera. The surface uses NVidia Tegra T30, and that is quad core. Also, it comes with 2GB of memory while iPad is only 1GB. Surface also has USB and microSD slot.

john.smith_2084 said,
The price is very good if it was competing with the iPad years ago, the current hardware I slower than the iPad, the screen is less resolution than the iPad, the software (it is up to your opinion to compare)
A much more advanced hardware is sold for much lower on the play store as well.

MDboyz said,
What? Hardware is slower than iPad? The iPad only has better screen, and only the rear camera. The surface uses NVidia Tegra T30, and that is quad core. Also, it comes with 2GB of memory while iPad is only 1GB. Surface also has USB and microSD slot.

The iPad doesn't have a better screen. It just has a higher resolution screen.

Both my sisters are using the iPads, but they keep asking to play with Surface RT whenever they come over to my house.

It was always going to be a difficult one for MS. I honestly think they need to keep the desktop OS for the desktop and the mobile OS for everything else, keep them compatible and everyone wins. One size fits all can never win.

Orange Battery said,
It was always going to be a difficult one for MS. I honestly think they need to keep the desktop OS for the desktop and the mobile OS for everything else, keep them compatible and everyone wins. One size fits all can never win.

Try telling that to Apple, remember Launchpad in OSX?

Overpriced. yeah doubtful. Most apples are overpriced. maybe any laptop without a touch screen that has Windows 8 is overpriced. Xoom was that price when it came out. and the 3G version is well over anyones racket. since it was originally $800 then knocked down to $700... So clearly the writer is an Apple fan.

McKay said,
So it's the same price as an iPad, yet its overpriced?

But with the iPad you get a lot of quality apps. it's also were developers go to develop first.

McKay said,
So it's the same price as an iPad, yet its overpriced?

The ipad is not just a tablet. It's a Work of art. It makes you feel you are someone exceptional, and everyone else jealous. The surface RT just looks like a retarded toy.

ps: I own a galaxy tab, but that doesn't matter.

bigmehdi said,

The ipad is not just a tablet. It's a Work of art. It makes you feel you are someone exceptional, and everyone else jealous. The surface RT just looks like a retarded toy.

ps: I own a galaxy tab, but that doesn't matter.

This is sarcasm, right?

bigmehdi said,

The ipad is not just a tablet. It's a Work of art. It makes you feel you are someone exceptional, and everyone else jealous. The surface RT just looks like a retarded toy.

ps: I own a galaxy tab, but that doesn't matter.

Hmmm, so we have the Surface RT which, in your opinion, is a retarded toy or the iPad. Remind me again which one has the full size USB port, micro HDMI, Office Suite included and a physical keyboard?

I think MS found a sweet spot with the Surface. They priced it high enough that other OEM's can come in and really be competitive. I am more disappointed that none else has taken the concept and made a similar device cheaper. When things are overpriced you usually find similar products cheaper. The peers of the Surface are usually the same price or cost more.

As for the keyboard being necessary, no...

You can work quite well and easily with the onscreen keyboard (which is better than the iPad, and sadly nobody mentions this.) Even on the Pro tablets, like the Surface Pro where you can run full titles like WoW, Crysis, etc, the Onscreen keyboard actually overlays and works in existing gaming titles.

Additionally, you can plug in virtually any keyboard, since it is a device with a REAL USB port with a set of standard drivers for USB devices like keyboards, mice, etc. Something that is NOT even possible on Android or iPad devices.

(Heck even take a Game controller, and plug it in - this doesn't work so well with iPad or Android with out a dedicated device that has NO universal App support.)

Not to mention Bluetooth and all the wireless keyboard options available.

This is why the cover is 'optional' because there are people that already have a portable keyboard and mouse and have no use for the cover.

These articles literally are insane. These are the same people that will pay the same amount of money for a 'lite' OS with 1/10th the features and functionality and call the devices equal to Windows 8 RT. They are also the same people that will spend $600 for an iPhone without blinking, but a full PC or even the Surface RT at $500-800 is too expensive for them. They are either hypocrites or just ignorant.

As for the comments about Chris P. - he will shove whatever product he is getting free. He did this when Apple gave him new Mac Pros and Displays at the release of Vista, and in one month his articles went from pro Vista, to complaining his 5 year old printer didn't have a built in driver and Vista was horrible.

Sadly too many people listen to these idiots that get 'swag' to talk crap about products. Google and Apple are BOTH throwing hardware at these "journalists", and they are the winners.


PS as for the built in storage differences, you can't add external storage to a freaking iPad and you can't plug in USB storage devices to Android tablets. So you may be limited on 'internal' storage, but you can literally have 10TB hooked up a Surface RT if you want, something NO other tablet offers.

thenetavenger said,
As for the keyboard being necessary, no...

You can work quite well and easily with the onscreen keyboard (which is better than the iPad, and sadly nobody mentions this.)

Because the people comparing the two have a different opinion about it than you do, maybe?


Additionally, you can plug in virtually any keyboard, since it is a device with a REAL USB port with a set of standard drivers for USB devices like keyboards, mice, etc. Something that is NOT even possible on Android or iPad devices.

That's a half truth, there. Sans mice and etc, if it were the complete truth, then explain why I can use any USB keyboard that I plug into my iPad via the USB adapter? I find the wires to be a hassle anyways, so that's why I prefer a slim Bluetooth keyboard instead. But that's besides the point. You're claiming that it's not possible or real.

I agree with the argument of their article... to an extent. The surface is overpriced but it's not alone in that, most high end tablets (Apple, Android, and Microsoft) are overpriced in my opinion.

"In addition, Windows RT comes with Office installed; apparently the author doesn't think adds any value to the device."

Considering it opens it up on the desktop, and I watched reviews of ppl trying to navigate it with their finger ... I don't blame them tbh. What value does it add if its hard and frustrating?

JessJess said,
"In addition, Windows RT comes with Office installed; apparently the author doesn't think adds any value to the device."

Considering it opens it up on the desktop, and I watched reviews of ppl trying to navigate it with their finger ... I don't blame them tbh. What value does it add if its hard and frustrating?

That only happens if they're stupid enough to buy the 32GB version without the touch cover, like Chris Pirillo.

JessJess said,
"In addition, Windows RT comes with Office installed; apparently the author doesn't think adds any value to the device."

Considering it opens it up on the desktop, and I watched reviews of ppl trying to navigate it with their finger ... I don't blame them tbh. What value does it add if its hard and frustrating?

OK, but it's still a bonus. What would've people said if MS did not include it?

Saying that, I think they should have also included a metro version of office. Having only a desktop-version on a tablet is a bit weird.

eddman said,

OK, but it's still a bonus. What would've people said if MS did not include it?

Saying that, I think they should have also included a metro version of office. Having only a desktop-version office on a tablet is a bit weird.

Microsoft do have a Metro version of OneNote, I have it installed on my Surface.

neo158 said,

Microsoft do have a Metro version of OneNote, I have it installed on my Surface.

I meant office as a whole, not just onenote.

eddman said,

OK, but it's still a bonus. What would've people said if MS did not include it?

Saying that, I think they should have also included a metro version of office. Having only a desktop-version on a tablet is a bit weird.

Yes having it break out of the metro interface and chuck you to a desktop just negates the entire point of Windows 8.

@neo158 ok so you are saying in order to use the included office properly you need the touch cover.... which is not included.

JessJess said,

Yes having it break out of the metro interface and chuck you to a desktop just negates the entire point of Windows 8.

@neo158 ok so you are saying in order to use the included office properly you need the touch cover.... which is not included.

Not included in the base 32GB model:
http://www.microsoftstore.com/..._GB/pdp/productID.258666000

However they do have a more expensive 32GB version which does come with a touch cover, which means you save money.

JessJess said,
"In addition, Windows RT comes with Office installed; apparently the author doesn't think adds any value to the device."

Considering it opens it up on the desktop, and I watched reviews of ppl trying to navigate it with their finger ... I don't blame them tbh. What value does it add if its hard and frustrating?


Then plug a $5 mouse and keyboard in when you want be productive. Editing a word document on a touch screen sounds horribly painful no matter how good the interface is.

eddman said,

What about the 500$ version that lacks one?

Then people who buy that one have no reason to complain, they made the choice to buy the one without the touch cover. IMHO it's stupid that Microsoft even offer one without the touch cover in the first place.

neo158 said,

Then people who buy that one have no reason to complain, they made the choice to buy the one without the touch cover. IMHO it's stupid that Microsoft even offer one without the touch cover in the first place.

Maybe, but seeing that this is a tablet and its primary input is the touch display, a metro office makes sense.

Who knows; perhaps they are working on one behind the scenes.

eddman said,

Maybe, but seeing that this is a tablet and its primary input is the touch display, a metro office makes sense.

Who knows; perhaps they are working on one behind the scenes.

I think they might be working on a Metro version of Office as well considering they released OneNote as a Metro app.

rdmiller said,
If you read it on the internet, it must be true.

well after you look for the logo and check the brand name..

everyone wants to think they are smart but...
i rememeber seeing a story about FutureShop on TV in Canada about how they were busted raping people in the PC sales section of there store(s) doing things such as highly over priced extended warranties and the kicker was pushing "premium" cables on people such as a 15$ hdmi cable for $200 lol
I guess that's only a problem for that 1 dumb guy on earth though
all the rest of us are too smart lol

Well, I have three disappointment with the surface RT:
- the screen is nos a great as competition (only plus, it reflect less luminosity)
- only 16 gb free, with a 32 gb drive
- it looks like a toy: probably the tiles of windows RT help in that feeling.

Considering these three factors, not overpriced, just not putting money into it.

bigmehdi said,
- only 16 gb free, with a 32 gb drive
- it looks like a toy: probably the tiles of windows RT help in that feeling.

-High-resolution is nice, but it isn't everything.
-You can have as much as 24 GB free space.
-It's a toy that you can connect printers and NTFS external HDDs to a it.

bigmehdi said,
Well, I have three disappointment with the surface RT:
- the screen is nos a great as competition (only plus, it reflect less luminosity)
- only 16 gb free, with a 32 gb drive
- it looks like a toy: probably the tiles of windows RT help in that feeling.

Considering these three factors, not overpriced, just not putting money into it.

1. The Surface uses the same IPS display tech that the iPad does, so how is it inferior?
2. I'll ask the same question here that I did in the forums, what are people doing to only have 16GB of storage free. I had 24GB free when I first got mine.
3. That's an opinion, I think that the iPad looks like a toy. The live tiles convey more information than an icon meaning that I don't have to open applications to see the content.

I think that the iPad is overpriced when compared spec for spec with Surface. Oh, I also forgot to mention that Surface uses Gorilla Glass 2 as well.

neo158 said,
1. The Surface uses the same IPS display tech that the iPad does, so how is it inferior?

Seriously?! It's a fraction of the resolution, despite the display being physically larger.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Seriously?! It's a fraction of the resolution, despite the display being physically larger.


When your eyes can't tell the difference (and there's been studies shown that they can't, unless you're holding it closer than 22 inches, which if you are, get reading glasses) who the hell cares? My surface looks as good as an iPad when holding them naturally.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Seriously?! It's a fraction of the resolution, despite the display being physically larger.

By that logic the display on my PC is inferior because it's not 1080p. It's not all about resolution. I would rather have a lower res display with a 16:9 aspect ratio than a high res display with a 4:3 aspect ratio.

The display on my phone is lower resolution than Surface, does that make it inferior?

neo158 said,

1. The Surface uses the same IPS display tech that the iPad does, so how is it inferior?

I didn't know. My disappointment, is about the color displayed: 60% of srgb color space instead of at least 80% for competition. This was according to a comparison article published here, I don't have to patience to refind it. And also, I would like an s-amoled screen with vivid colors, and high contrast, that matters more to me than resolution.

bigmehdi said,

I didn't know. My disappointment, is about the color displayed: 60% of srgb color space instead of at least 80% for competition. This was according to a comparison article published here, I don't have to patience to refind it. And also, I would like an s-amoled screen with vivid colors, and high contrast, that matters more to me than resolution.

No Problem, Microsoft are working on Surface 2 apparently so it'll be interesting to see what tech they put into it. TBH the colour reproduction isn't that bad, better than most tablets I've used anyway.

siah1214 said,
When your eyes can't tell the difference (and there's been studies shown that they can't, unless you're holding it closer than 22 inches, which if you are, get reading glasses) who the hell cares? My surface looks as good as an iPad when holding them naturally.

And there were studies claiming you couldn't tell the difference between CD audio and 192k MP3s, yet that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The reality is that there IS a difference but it's not the only important factor. People actually argued that there wasn't much point going up to HD because DVD-quality was already good enough.

The question was how was the screen inferior, to which my response was perfectly accurate.

neo158 said,

3. That's an opinion, I think that the iPad looks like a toy. The live tiles convey more information than an icon meaning that I don't have to open applications to see the content.

Have you heard of the notification center in iOS? It enables you to see a summary of the application's content without needing to open the application itself. Similar to live tiles. It's pretty neat.

omgben said,

Have you heard of the notification center in iOS? It enables you to see a summary of the application's content without needing to open the application itself. Similar to live tiles. It's pretty neat.

The difference is that Live Tiles can cycle through content e.g. The BBC News app cycles through the top stories that the app has downloaded in the background. Notification Centre will only show the summary from a particular app, but you still have to open the app in question to view any additional content the app may have downloaded.

Edited by neo158, Dec 9 2012, 6:12pm :

theyarecomingforyou said,

And there were studies claiming you couldn't tell the difference between CD audio and 192k MP3s, yet that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The reality is that there IS a difference but it's not the only important factor. People actually argued that there wasn't much point going up to HD because DVD-quality was already good enough.

The question was how was the screen inferior, to which my response was perfectly accurate.

Trust me, the screen on the Surface is excellent and the lower resolution doesn't make any practical difference.

The benefits of high-res screens are vastly exaggerated and have more to do with marketing than real life.

siah1214 said,

When your eyes can't tell the difference (and there's been studies shown that they can't, unless you're holding it closer than 22 inches, which if you are, get reading glasses) who the hell cares? My surface looks as good as an iPad when holding them naturally.

Who is using a tablet 2 feet away from them? Useless stat.

TheArgonaut said,

Who is using a tablet 2 feet away from them? Useless stat.

hmm maybe grab a measuring tape and hold your arm out ?
and then hold the device with arm in a comfortable position..
i doubt people are walking around holding tablets at arms length for every day usage lol

jakem1 said,

Trust me, the screen on the Surface is excellent and the lower resolution doesn't make any practical difference.

The benefits of high-res screens are vastly exaggerated and have more to do with marketing than real life.

^ That

Ultra-high dpi screens are for one thing: to get your moneys.

This is just another peen sucker trying to get to terms about getting shafted by Apple releasing the iPeen 4.. er I mean iPad 4 too soon after the iPe.. iPad 3.

Taking his frustration out on something else, tsk.

Personally, I think companies are scared of the Surface. A couple of improvements and it could be game changing to a lot of companies who don't seem to be able to compete with the iPad. PC's/laptops are changing. What we think PC's/laptops are now is not what they will look like in the future.

I do think Microsoft should have come in with a lower price point, so they could have gained market share more quickly.

I'm a die hard Apple fan but I don't think its overpriced, its in line with the competition. I'm looking to swap my iPad for a Surface as it happens

they should have had the RT at the 300-400 dollar sweet spot and it would have made more of a dent in android and ipad sales.... I would have gotten one this x-mas as well.

remixedcat said,
they should have had the RT at the 300-400 dollar sweet spot and it would have made more of a dent in android and ipad sales.... I would have gotten one this x-mas as well.

True. I want the Pro, but I would have gotten one of those for now and then offloaded it to the wife when the Pro is released

Dot Matrix said,
Still not stopping me from buying one...

Agreed, I base my opinions on my usage of devices themselves not what some overpaid journalist for some rag thinks. That's why I'm keeping my Surface RT and contrary to what these magazines and tech websites think of it, everyone I've shown my Surface to loves it.

Dot Matrix said,
Still not stopping me from buying one...

we know

i bet as long as it has a MS logo on it you would buy it..
and i'm saying that with sincerity i really do believe that ..not joking around.
and i think that's kinda sad

Edited by John S., Dec 10 2012, 6:43pm :

I am Not PCyr said,

we know

i bet as long as it has a M$ logo on it you would buy it..
and i'm saying that with sincerity i really do believe that ..not joking around.
and i think that's kinda sad

You lost your credibility at M$

.Neo said,

You sound just like an iSheep!
No he doesn't. Clearly you have no idea how iSheep sound.

He finds the Surface RT to be usefl, who are you to question how he spends his money?

Like any consumer, if they want it they buy it. Its just simple. But it is different in buying simply out of habit or impulse (namely iSheep) or buying for specific need.

Here let me show you. A bunch of clueless iSheep just ran out an bought the iPad Mini which is using 2 year old hardware for $328 starting. How much you bet the next model which will cost he same with be 100% identical, with the only exception it will have an HD panel? How many losers with present Mini's are going to run out and sell the old to get the new?

The Surface is a first run product by Microsoft. Thus it doesn't qualify as sheep material. You would have to make an objective purchase to want it. Thus iSheep doesn't apply.

Stop being purposely ignorant.

In my opinion, almost all tablets are overpriced (I'm talking the big ones; iPad, Surface, Galaxy Tab, TouchPad, Playbook, etc.).

It's definitely not one of the most overpriced gadgets of all time. Thats ridiculous and the author is simply a moron, or it's done for page hits.

But i do think it is slightly overpriced, mainly considering the screen resolution of the Surface compared to the iPad, which has much higher res. Or look at the Nexus 10 as well, it has the same res as my 30" monitors! The Surface is better built compared to iPad (magnesium > flimsy aluminium) but theres the fact that theres not many apps yet for RT, so if you're bringing out a new device AND ecosystem you really need to price your products lower. Even if it means making little to no money on the device itself, in order to get a good foot hold in the market.

The article is just an excuse to bash Surface. Trying to hide that fact by distracting readers with 9 expensive items doesn't work too well, but I'm sure the author thought he was being clever.

BattleDaggit said,
The article is just an excuse to bash Surface. Trying to hide that fact by distracting readers with 9 expensive items doesn't work too well, but I'm sure the author thought he was being clever.

I dunno. I was a fan of it myself until I saw the price tag. I mean, it's nice seeing tablets go from a content consumption device to a content creation device, but at that price? I've just gotta say no. I'd much rather get this instead: http://goo.gl/HkOZY

Not a tablet I know, but for the price, I'd just rather go that route instead.

Congrats.

Do whatever works for you. A notebook computer wouldnt work for me. A tablet is what I need, so I'll go with the Surface. It fits my needs perfectly.

Was the HP Touchpad back in there somewhere? Before the $99 fire sale it was (not) selling for $599. It had WebOS. Keyboards, stands, etc. all cost extra. That seems more overpriced.

SurCace called one of the most over priced gadgets?? well, i would agree its overpriced
ipad 32 Gb has more 25 Gb left. it has high resolution screen and well build quality.

I think that joke was trying a bit too hard, but I do think it's a bit overpriced for what you're getting. I'll still recommend an iPad or laptop over this if for nothing but that software selection.

still1 said,
SurCace called one of the most over priced gadgets?? well, i would agree its overpriced
ipad 32 Gb has more 25 Gb left. it has high resolution screen and well build quality.

That's mostly because iPad runs an OS designed for a mediaplayer. Oh wait, it basically is that mediaplayer, but with a bigger screen. For a media player to loose half the screen when playing an everyday 16:9 movie or TV series episode baffles me. The fact you get glorious mono audio also is a plus.

But after the mini next year we'll get the iPad HD and no doubt Apple will try to convince you they just did invent playback of 16:9 content full screen.

KSib said,
I think that joke was trying a bit too hard, but I do think it's a bit overpriced for what you're getting. I'll still recommend an iPad or laptop over this if for nothing but that software selection.

Have you even tried Windows 8/RT? There is plenty of software, I'm stil suprised to see how fast the selection is growing. The Marketplace is of poor design but when you search for apps you'll be suprised to see what you can find. Perhaps this is different for some countries but all big companies/websites/services in my country seem to have embraced Windows 8. The international selection is also great. Not to mention it is the fastest growing appstore of all time. The value of devices such as the Surface is increasing every day.

paulheu said,

That's mostly because iPad runs an OS designed for a mediaplayer. Oh wait, it basically is that mediaplayer, but with a bigger screen. For a media player to loose half the screen when playing an everyday 16:9 movie or TV series episode baffles me. The fact you get glorious mono audio also is a plus.

But after the mini next year we'll get the iPad HD and no doubt Apple will try to convince you they just did invent playback of 16:9 content full screen.


What are you going on about lol
IOS is a amazing OS for what it does and doesn't take up half of the storage like surface does.

WaveZero said,
And that's why magazines are dieing out.... Neowin FTW!!

Indeed, it's not like bad journalism exists on the web. Or that web sites die for that matter.

I'm no real fan of the Surface, nor Windows 8 to be honest.. but to call it an "overpriced gadget" is not only laughably bad journalism, but clearly makes me think the author has some kind of agenda.

What about the 'Porsche Design' Blackberry, or iPhones clad in precious stones that cost thousands of pounds? Sloppy piece of journalism IMHO.