Surface Pro 2 128GB goes "out of stock"

Pre-orders for the Surface 2 tablets have been selling out fast at Microsoft's online store and this time the Surface Pro 2 128GB variant has gone "out of stock".

Microsoft announced the second generation of Surface tablets last month, which went up for pre-order few days back. Since then the Surface 2 tablets seem to be getting a good response from consumers as Microsoft is reportedly running low on stock for most variants. Now, the online store has marked the 128GB Pro version "out of stock." It was reported earlier, that the 256GB and 512GB versions of Surface Pro 2 are also close to selling out along with the Surface 2 64GB.

As we do not know the exact number of tablets that were available initially, the sell-out cannot be used to estimate the success of the Surface 2/Surface Pro 2. We will get a clearer picture once Microsoft releases the sales figures.

Potential buyers of the remaining Surface 2 lineup should pre-order soon at the Microsoft store to avoid waiting for new inventory. Pre-orders will be shipped by October 21 and retail availability starts from October 22.

Source: Microsoft Store | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Original Surface Pro gets firmware update to help with Windows 8.1 upgrade

Next Story

Microsoft's Xbox One engineers reveal more about console's CPU

61 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

There is two possibilities:
1. The claim is correct. out of stock. But how much they make ? 100, 1000 ?
2. They lie. sometimes to make people buy they do something to make other people belief that it is good and many people buy it.
it is happened when microsoft selling vista and windows 8 they say that they already sell a lot bla bla bla

So in your world Microsoft can tell no truth, you can ONLY come up with those two possibilities and neither one could actually mean good for an MS product lmao@you utomo!

They can easily refute any doubt by releasing numbers. There must be some reason they're not boasting about figures.

Would be good to see an ultrabook from Microsoft similar in design to the Surface Pro. Something similar to the Sony Vaio Pro 11/13 would be great. As great as tablets are I still prefer a proper laptop build and even with the type cover it just isn't good enough for me.

I'd love to see a 13" Surface Pro for the screen real estate, but I am pretty sure that we are in the minority.

With that said, I love the ability swap keyboards and to remove it whenever I want.

greenwizard88 said,
I wish they would make a real laptop, one that look fantastic and has great driver support.

So....the surface pro?

i_was_here said,

So...adding a keyboard to a tablet makes it a laptop?

lap┬Ětop
1.small portable computer: a small portable personal computer, often battery operated, usually consisting of a case that opens to reveal a screen in the upper part and a keyboard in the lower part.

Yes.

If Microsoft truly wants Windows RT to be a great success, they have to lower to price of the Surface RT to the sweet spot which is between $199-$250. They should drop the licensing fee for RT also. Surface RTs would sell like hot cakes at $199-$250, plus the market share of Windows RT would increase also.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
If Microsoft truly wants Windows RT to be a great success, they have to lower to price of the Surface RT to the sweet spot which is between $199-$250. They should drop the licensing fee for RT also. Surface RTs would sell like hot cakes at $199-$250, plus the market share of Windows RT would increase also.
$250 is below material and manufacturing costs. Also, why would they make RT free? Doesn't make sense for them to "sell like hot cakes" if there's no profit in it.

According to numerous articles, Windows RT is apparently not doing well. I suspect the culprit is that the price is too high, especially Surface RT. If Microsoft has to break even for a while to make Surface RT more successful, then they should do it. It is not like Microsoft is going to go broke over night. It would be a big mistake not to lower the price of the Surface RT. If the Surface RT sells well at $250, then Windows RT's marketshare will go up and other manufacturers will rollout more and new Windows RT devices as a result.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
According to numerous articles, Windows RT is apparently not doing well. I suspect the culprit is that the price is too high, especially Surface RT. If Microsoft has to break even for a while to make Surface RT more successful, then they should do it. It is not like Microsoft is going to go broke over night. It would be a big mistake not to lower the price of the Surface RT. If the Surface RT sells well at $250, then Windows RT's marketshare will go up and other manufacturers will rollout more and new Windows RT devices as a result.

I've had this discussion on here previously with others where they seemingly measured success by sales, or devices sold, rather than profit. Why is selling more Windows RT enabled devices at no profit equal to success?

At $250, the Surface RT would lose over $30 per unit. Why is increasing market share worth the loss of $30 per unit?

They need to increase their market share, even at a loss so that developers can make more apps. Developers like to target platforms that have a substantial user base to them and windows RT lacks that at this moment.

Microsoft should sell RT at a loss and Pro at a profit enough to make up for RT.

stevan said,
They need to increase their market share, even at a loss so that developers can make more apps. Developers like to target platforms that have a substantial user base to them and windows RT lacks that at this moment.

Microsoft should sell RT at a loss and Pro at a profit enough to make up for RT.


So after they burned through cash to sell these devices, how would they make it back up after developers created more apps? Would they then increase the price of the RT at a later point? Even at a 30% cut of app revenue, they wouldn't be able to crack $100 million.

If they sold the same amount of Surface RT's and pro's as last year, but sold the RT at a $30 loss per unit, they wouldn't be able to make up that difference with the amount of pro's sold. Again, assuming the same sales figure of last year. This is before accounting for the increased sale of RT's due to the lower price point.

If you're going down this route, why not just discontinue the RT and only sell the pro?

Who said they couldn't increase their revenue by taking cuts from apps? It would take time but they could eventually create a nice ecosystem for the RT. They wouldn't need to raise the prices now but with later versions.

Also, burn through what cash? They wrote down $900 million. If they sold them at a $50 loss they would need to sell 18 million of them before burning that much.

Remember how Xbox worked, and where they were making their money mostly? Look at what that developed into...

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
If Microsoft truly wants Windows RT to be a great success, they have to lower to price of the Surface RT to the sweet spot which is between $199-$250. They should drop the licensing fee for RT also. Surface RTs would sell like hot cakes at $199-$250, plus the market share of Windows RT would increase also.

They need a smaller Surface at $199-$250. The current large one is well priced, but not entry-level.

stevan said,
Who said they couldn't increase their revenue by taking cuts from apps? It would take time but they could eventually create a nice ecosystem for the RT. They wouldn't need to raise the prices now but with later versions.

Also, burn through what cash? They wrote down $900 million. If they sold them at a $50 loss they would need to sell 18 million of them before burning that much.

Remember how Xbox worked, and where they were making their money mostly? Look at what that developed into...


The total ROI on the Xbox is still in the red. They've never been able to recoup the money invested.

Even with a revenue cut from apps, it wouldn't be a substantial enough amount. They would be lucky to break the $100 million mark.

The $900 million was a write-down, like you said, due to a price reduction. There was no money lost in term of cash flow. The RT's still had a positive profit-margin. Selling them at a loss is holistically different than a price reduction.

And look now, they get to release a new xbox with an established user base and developer base at a profit. I believe that's a huge win.

One thing you need to get first is a user and developer base and that's impossible with a new product that is overpriced.

stevan said,
And look now, they get to release a new xbox with an established user base and developer base at a profit. I believe that's a huge win.

One thing you need to get first is a user and developer base and that's impossible with a new product that is overpriced.


They're going to lose over $1 billion dollars with the launch of Xbox One. There's no profit.

Ok well that's obvious. The point still stands that they will make a small profit with each Xbox one sold. Took a while but they are there. They have a superior online service and developers to make the games.

And those are the things they lack with the RT. Small user base and no developers to back them up.

Its simple. They need to cut the cost of the rt to get people to invest in their ecosystem. Why would someone who has spent loads on android/ios apps jump over to Microsoft when the entry price is so high? Simple answer is they won't and we saw this with the first iteration of the surface taking a nose dive off a cliff. If you can get people ingrained into the ecosystem then the profits follow from them using your services. Xbox music/video/games, SkyDrive, Bing etc. Why do you think google forgo a license fee for android? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Microsoft set the prices too high first time around and they didn't learn a thing for version 2. Expect the same thing to happen again.

the better twin said,
Its simple. They need to cut the cost of the rt to get people to invest in their ecosystem. Why would someone who has spent loads on android/ios apps jump over to Microsoft when the entry price is so high? Simple answer is they won't and we saw this with the first iteration of the surface taking a nose dive off a cliff. If you can get people ingrained into the ecosystem then the profits follow from them using your services. Xbox music/video/games, SkyDrive, Bing etc. Why do you think google forgo a license fee for android? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Microsoft set the prices too high first time around and they didn't learn a thing for version 2. Expect the same thing to happen again.

"Xbox music/video/games, SkyDrive, [and] Bing" are all unprofitable. Microsoft didn't originally create Xbox music and Skydrive with the intent of pulling in much money from them. Google also doesn't make that much in profit from the over a billion Android devices activated. Microsoft makes three times more on them than Google does, but okay.

the better twin said,
. Why would someone who has spent loads on android/ios apps jump over to Microsoft when the entry price is so high?

And even if you disregard price, it takes some time to find what are interesting/good apps.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
If Microsoft truly wants Windows RT to be a great success, they have to lower to price of the Surface RT to the sweet spot which is between $199-$250. They should drop the licensing fee for RT also. Surface RTs would sell like hot cakes at $199-$250, plus the market share of Windows RT would increase also.

No they don't need to lower the price but what they do need to do is market it better so that customers realise they're getting a copy of Microsoft Office included with the device as standard - something that most people would go off and purchase if this was a run of the mill tablet or PC from some other vendor. Maybe throw in a free touch cover too would be great so then it'll be marketed as a hybrid device rather than just a tablet - to get those customers who want a tablet and those who also want a laptop as well.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
If Microsoft truly wants Windows RT to be a great success, they have to lower to price of the Surface RT to the sweet spot which is between $199-$250. They should drop the licensing fee for RT also. Surface RTs would sell like hot cakes at $199-$250, plus the market share of Windows RT would increase also.
A great success is irrelevant if you're losing money on each unit.

Microsoft already wrote down $900 million to pricedown the devices, and I think at this point they are simply waiting to sell out of their Surface RT inventory before giving up on the first generation entirely. Given the performance of the Tegra 3, I can only hope that that guess is completely accurate.

pickypg said,
A great success is irrelevant if you're losing money on each unit.

Microsoft already wrote down $900 million to pricedown the devices, and I think at this point they are simply waiting to sell out of their Surface RT inventory before giving up on the first generation entirely. Given the performance of the Tegra 3, I can only hope that that guess is completely accurate.

Surface RT has support until 2016-17. They're not giving up on it anytime soon.

Because the true profit is NOTG from the sale of the device. The long-term profit comes from the ad revenue and app revenue - both of which are dependent on their being a large number of devices out there. No devices, no profits.

Salgoth said,
Because the true profit is NOTG from the sale of the device. The long-term profit comes from the ad revenue and app revenue - both of which are dependent on their being a large number of devices out there. No devices, no profits.

And why is that "true profit?" No company uses the app store as a primary means to profit. Apple app revenue makes up less than 1% of iPhone total revenue. Google doesn't even profit at all from apps. That 30% goes to the carriers. But it doesn't matter anyway because it's less than half the revenue of iPhone app store, which isn't much.

Also, ads from Android is less than 1% of Google's overall revenue. It isn't a reliable stream of income. FY12 was the first year they were able to pull in a billion dollars from ads on Android, even though they've been over one billion Android devices activated in total.

The two biggest players in the smartphone market both profit from hardware device sales. Microsoft, which profits from patent royalties, pulls in more than Google.

Edited by AWilliams87, Oct 7 2013, 1:16pm :

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
If Microsoft truly wants Windows RT to be a great .....

Sure if they unbundled their 200GB skydrive and Skype Everywhere and Office they could sell it for that price, and it would be a performer like every droid tablet in that price point, garbage.

Dot Matrix said,
Surface RT has support until 2016-17. They're not giving up on it anytime soon.
I mean shelf life. They'll be better off supporting it with software improvements that increase performance for the whole ecosystem than trying to keep it alive for the relatively small community around the Surface RT in particular (myself included in there).

AWilliams87 said,
And why is that "true profit?" No company uses the app store as a primary means to profit. Apple app revenue makes up less than 1% of iPhone total revenue. Google doesn't even profit at all from apps. That 30% goes to the carriers. But it doesn't matter anyway because it's less than half the revenue of iPhone app store, which isn't much.

Also, ads from Android is less than 1% of Google's overall revenue. It isn't a reliable stream of income. FY12 was the first year they were able to pull in a billion dollars from ads on Android, even though they've been over one billion Android devices activated in total.

Apple supposedly raked in at least $1 billion from their App Store. That 30% goes to themselves, bandwidth, storage, and credit card fees. No part of it goes to the carriers.

Having paid out $10 billion, you can divide that by 0.7 (70%) and you get $14.28 billion (100%), which means that Apple has made between $0 and $4.28 billion from the App Store, ignoring repeat hardware sales because people are afraid of leaving an ecosystem that they paid themselves into.

AWilliams87 said,
The two biggest players in the smartphone market both profit from hardware device sales. Microsoft, which profits from patent royalties, pulls in more than Google.
Google only profits (assuming it's profitable?) from the hardware sales of their recently purchased, now-subsidiary Motorola, and modest licensing fees associated with Google apps from the likes of Samsung. Google's goal is to prevent iOS (and now WP) sales, which thus pushes users toward Google services and ads; this is why they open sourced Android, which made it easy for Samsung, LG, and (then) HTC to compete. Like everyone else, Google has not yet figured out how to really make money from ads on mobile.

I said the 30% from Google's app store goes to the carriers, not Apple. I thought I made it clear in my reply.

The two biggest players in the smartphone market I was referring to Apple and Samsung; both profit from hardware sales. I didn't mean to imply Google if that's what you got from the reply.

We preordered 1 of these and will order one of the Dell Venue 11 Pros fully maxed. To be honest, I think the Dell will be better simply because it is thinner (Fanless) and the docking station seems to be better. Other than that they seem to be on par with one another. We'll have to see what the final pricing is for the Venue Pro 11 is before we decide what will be our "everything" replacement.

Drewidian said,
We preordered 1 of these and will order one of the Dell Venue 11 Pros fully maxed. To be honest, I think the Dell will be better simply because it is thinner (Fanless) and the docking station seems to be better. Other than that they seem to be on par with one another. We'll have to see what the final pricing is for the Venue Pro 11 is before we decide what will be our "everything" replacement.

the pro 2 is fan less but it is thicker lol

duk3togo said,
.... the pro 2 is fan less but it is thicker ....

ORLY?

Why does it still have the vent around the bezel then?
I think you should check again.

deadonthefloor said,

ORLY?

Why does it still have the vent around the bezel then?
I think you should check again.


Look at the press release it was mentioned there that its fanless.

If it wasn't 16:9, I wouldn't mind one. It's just not good use in portrait mode which I use a lot for reading.
I still have the original iPad 1. I'm really due for an upgrade bad.

Same for me. I think I'll be sticking to the iPad as long as all the other tablet makers release widescreen versions.

The Pro version with Haswell can't be anything other then 16:9 as it's a "workstation", but the 8" one should be in some other format.

Well for a workstation I think I would prefer a desktop. General use a laptop and fun use a tablet. I can see this might be more for the on the go corporate crowd than the guy who wants a toy but I'm sure there is a reason MS had to write off $900 million on the first surface due to low sales. Maybe it's timing or maybe a better CPU and battery life will change that but it's asking a lot for average joe to invest apps and peripherals into something that's little more useable than an ultrabook with flip screen.

NightScreams said,
If it wasn't 16:9, I wouldn't mind one. It's just not good use in portrait mode which I use a lot for reading.
I still have the original iPad 1. I'm really due for an upgrade bad.

If you don't have a Surface and so are imagining this is the case, you should give it a try. I found Surface RT in portrait is a little odd at first in transition from iPad 2, but I find I prefer it now, because I can always reach links in the content without dropping a hand (the iPad in portrait is too wide to do so), the line length is as good as the iPad (reading apps on iPad tend to have whitespace on both sides to keep it manageable), and it props on the chest better for prone reading (the iPad doesn't have as much height to spare in portrait.) The only bad thing for reading was the low-res screen, but the Surface 2 corrects this.

Edited by waded, Oct 7 2013, 2:57am :

NightScreams said,
If it wasn't 16:9, I wouldn't mind one. It's just not good use in portrait mode which I use a lot for reading.
I still have the original iPad 1. I'm really due for an upgrade bad.
If you are using either tablet as a regular eReader, then you really need to do yourself a favor and upgrade to a Kindle Paperwhite (or equivalent). Your eyes will definitely thank you.

I have bought an iPad 2, Surface RT, Surface Pro and Kindle Paperwhite. My eyes feel so much better when I read with the Kindle versus any of the others. However, when I do use any of the tablets, then I have found that my programming books tend to work best with the Surface's widescreen when I have to deal with diagrams, plus ClearType fonts are much easier to read than most other screens have to show for it.

NightScreams said,
If it wasn't 16:9, I wouldn't mind one. It's just not good use in portrait mode which I use a lot for reading.
I still have the original iPad 1. I'm really due for an upgrade bad.

It has an orientation lock which means it can go either way. Only flaw I see is the fact you can't use the kickstand in portrait mode.

I did handle a Surface 1. I hated it in portrait. Too narrow and tall. To get used to it or not still seems a little counter intuitive to me.

Enron said,
I heard Microsoft has already got 1 million preorders for the new Surfaces.

That's interesting considering that it hasn't even been revealed how many units are being manufactured and a quick search turns up nothing to corroborate such a claim.

Selling out of 128GB models is irrelevant when we don't know how many were produced. If it's 10,000 then it's really not that impressive; if it's 10,000,000 then just the opposite.

theyarecomingforyou said,
we don't know how many were produced. If it's 10,000 then it's really not that impressive;

Probably, 2 items were sold, to make sure that PR department could use plural tense in "Sold Out" announcement .

EJocys said,

Probably, 2 items were sold, to make sure that PR department could use plural tense in "Sold Out" announcement .

^this

Mike Greenway said,
I heard 2 million! From some guy call Anonymous Source, he is quoted all the time and is known to be reliable, right?

Not as good as my source, People familiar with the matter.
They say 1.8Million.

Enron said,
I heard Microsoft has already got 1 million preorders for the new Surfaces.

Haha Why not go all out. I heard that Microsoft has already got ten million preorders.... What utter nonsense.