4 ms·

This is a bizarre comparison. The Surface Studio is not in competition with the MacBook Pro. It's closest analogue is something like the iPad Pro with a stand I

This is a bizarre comparison. The Surface Studio is not in competition with the MacBook Pro. It's closest analogue is something like the iPad Pro with a stand I guess. Apple will not be making a direct competitor to the Surface Studio because they aren't going to make a touch screen MacOS (the right decision IMO). I mean the Studio looks nice if you're an illustrator but there's no obligation to compete with every niche product out there. There are legitimate gripes with the new MacBook Pros (price mainly) but this article's premise seems confused.

eva1984 10y ago
But Surface Studio hit that imagination sweetspot. The Surface Dial feels so simple and intuitive, yet completely caught me off guard. The old Apple use to have that. But ever since Cook really takes over, every Apple press release, becomes endless circlejerk of "2x CPU/GPU", "thinner and thinner", "best XXXX we ever designed". Especially the thinner and thinner thing, it becomes some kind of religious cult, that Apple seems to prioritize beyond user's convenience. This is not what an innovative company should be, it is a company that so desperate clinging to its old formula.
Ravengenocide 10y ago
Luckily the article does not say that the Surface Studio is in competition with the MacBook Pro. The author says that what Microsoft and Apple unveiled at their respective events heavily favoured Microsoft.
- gurkendoktor 10y ago
  The author (along with many other articles) compares it to the iMac, though: > The Studio (...) is what the iMac should be by now — a truly innovative, ultra-thin, 28-inch touchscreen. That doesn't make any more sense to me. The iMac and MacBook Pro are both expensive, but they're "computers for the masses" - they're great machines for almost everyone. (Or in the case of the MacBook Pro dongles, they're equally frustrating for everyone.) The Surface Studio, on the other hand, is a computer built for illustrators. I agree with the author that Apple's presentation was terrible, and I can't get excited about the TouchBar either. But I don't think that building niche computers is the way forward.
  - toyg 10y ago
    > computers for the masses At those prices, more like computers for the 1% - a niche almost as small as illustrators.
    - oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
      Far more 'for the masses' than the Surface Studio which is three times the price, though. And, of course, at those prices, three times is a LOT. Everyone seems to be of the opinion that home desktops 'for the masses' are on the way out anyway, so those who will be buying iMacs (if they continue to exist) in future are likely to be in the 1%; the Surface Studio buyers will probably be in the 0.1%, though.
      - zyx321 10y ago
        >three times the price It's only 30% more than the iMac of comparable size (which is last year's model, to boot)
lmm 10y ago
As a happy Surface Book user, I don't see how the Surface Studio is niche? I don't use the touchscreen that often, but it's great to have it - why would you ever not want touch to work? And there are some things that are a lot better on a touchscreen. In 5 or 10 years every desktop computer will look like the Surface Studio. At the moment it's a premium product (but so is everything Apple makes).
- oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
  > In 5 or 10 years every desktop computer will look like the Surface Studio. Disagree. Maybe a lot of 'home' desktops will, but there will still be a need for alternative form factors. In fact, I think desktop computers will look a lot more diverse than maybe they ever have in 10 years time. I think we'll have a bunch that look more or less like the Surface studio, for use by illustrators, graphic designers, etc. But we'll also have computers that are optimised for writers, developers, etc. These will have great keyboards. They'll probably have a smaller, non-touch screen (I certainly don't want a touch interface on my desktop, and I hope that option remains). I hope they'll all have really, really good screens that are as 'flexible' as the studio (or the old iMac G4).
  - lmm 10y ago
    But what illustrator/designer would choose to use a bad keyboard? And if we're already assuming a desk, I don't think any writer or developer would choose a small screen (and indeed today's "small" desktop screens are the same size as the "artist/designer-only large" screens of a decade ago). Nor do I think anyone would deliberately choose non-touch, since other things being equal touch sensitivity is purely an upgrade (and the surface book shows touch doesn't have to mean compromises on other aspects of the screen). At its current price point the Surface Studio only makes sense for those who really need its capabilities, but as a writer/developer I would absolutely use one if it were cheap enough.
    - oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
      I have many non-technical acquaintances who don't want 'the biggest screen possible' - at a certain size, screens just get too big for most people. In fact, 24" is probably about my personal limit - bigger than that, and I'm just going to be moving my head too much for comfort. I definitely wouldn't want a touchscreen on a desktop monitor. Unless it was literally no more expensive or the only option - which, of course, may well be the case one day. Don't get me wrong, I do see the advantage of touch - the original iPad is probably one of the most usable devices I've ever owned - but it would be utterly wasted on a desktop for me. Again, maybe a family computer, but not one that I wish to work on. I would also love a Surface Studio, as a toy. I'm sure it's still a great machine besides that, but I know I definitely wouldn't make good enough use of it - I'm just not that good an artist.
audunw 10y ago
> because they aren't going to make a touch screen MacOS (the right decision IMO). I think a lot boils down to this. People think "innovation" is making laptops into tablets. Seeing how many times Microsoft failed here, I agree that this is not the right decision. Maybe Microsoft is starting getting it right with Windows 10. But they've failed so many times up until now, and it's still not clear that they've nailed it yet. A key to good innovation, is to have the right innovation at the right time. Microsoft has tried to innovate by doing the same thing over and over, in different ways, until it succeeds. This may be fine for Microsoft, but it's in Apples culture to try to innovate by not innovating until they're sure they can get it right at the first try.

eva1984 10y ago

But Surface Studio hit that imagination sweetspot. The Surface Dial feels so simple and intuitive, yet completely caught me off guard. The old Apple use to have that. But ever since Cook really takes over, every Apple press release, becomes endless circlejerk of "2x CPU/GPU", "thinner and thinner", "best XXXX we ever designed". Especially the thinner and thinner thing, it becomes some kind of religious cult, that Apple seems to prioritize beyond user's convenience. This is not what an innovative company should be, it is a company that so desperate clinging to its old formula.

Ravengenocide 10y ago

Luckily the article does not say that the Surface Studio is in competition with the MacBook Pro. The author says that what Microsoft and Apple unveiled at their respective events heavily favoured Microsoft.

gurkendoktor 10y ago
The author (along with many other articles) compares it to the iMac, though: > The Studio (...) is what the iMac should be by now — a truly innovative, ultra-thin, 28-inch touchscreen. That doesn't make any more sense to me. The iMac and MacBook Pro are both expensive, but they're "computers for the masses" - they're great machines for almost everyone. (Or in the case of the MacBook Pro dongles, they're equally frustrating for everyone.) The Surface Studio, on the other hand, is a computer built for illustrators. I agree with the author that Apple's presentation was terrible, and I can't get excited about the TouchBar either. But I don't think that building niche computers is the way forward.
- toyg 10y ago
  > computers for the masses At those prices, more like computers for the 1% - a niche almost as small as illustrators.
  - oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
    Far more 'for the masses' than the Surface Studio which is three times the price, though. And, of course, at those prices, three times is a LOT. Everyone seems to be of the opinion that home desktops 'for the masses' are on the way out anyway, so those who will be buying iMacs (if they continue to exist) in future are likely to be in the 1%; the Surface Studio buyers will probably be in the 0.1%, though.
    - zyx321 10y ago
      >three times the price It's only 30% more than the iMac of comparable size (which is last year's model, to boot)

lmm 10y ago

As a happy Surface Book user, I don't see how the Surface Studio is niche? I don't use the touchscreen that often, but it's great to have it - why would you ever not want touch to work? And there are some things that are a lot better on a touchscreen. In 5 or 10 years every desktop computer will look like the Surface Studio. At the moment it's a premium product (but so is everything Apple makes).

oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
> In 5 or 10 years every desktop computer will look like the Surface Studio. Disagree. Maybe a lot of 'home' desktops will, but there will still be a need for alternative form factors. In fact, I think desktop computers will look a lot more diverse than maybe they ever have in 10 years time. I think we'll have a bunch that look more or less like the Surface studio, for use by illustrators, graphic designers, etc. But we'll also have computers that are optimised for writers, developers, etc. These will have great keyboards. They'll probably have a smaller, non-touch screen (I certainly don't want a touch interface on my desktop, and I hope that option remains). I hope they'll all have really, really good screens that are as 'flexible' as the studio (or the old iMac G4).
- lmm 10y ago
  But what illustrator/designer would choose to use a bad keyboard? And if we're already assuming a desk, I don't think any writer or developer would choose a small screen (and indeed today's "small" desktop screens are the same size as the "artist/designer-only large" screens of a decade ago). Nor do I think anyone would deliberately choose non-touch, since other things being equal touch sensitivity is purely an upgrade (and the surface book shows touch doesn't have to mean compromises on other aspects of the screen). At its current price point the Surface Studio only makes sense for those who really need its capabilities, but as a writer/developer I would absolutely use one if it were cheap enough.
  - oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
    I have many non-technical acquaintances who don't want 'the biggest screen possible' - at a certain size, screens just get too big for most people. In fact, 24" is probably about my personal limit - bigger than that, and I'm just going to be moving my head too much for comfort. I definitely wouldn't want a touchscreen on a desktop monitor. Unless it was literally no more expensive or the only option - which, of course, may well be the case one day. Don't get me wrong, I do see the advantage of touch - the original iPad is probably one of the most usable devices I've ever owned - but it would be utterly wasted on a desktop for me. Again, maybe a family computer, but not one that I wish to work on. I would also love a Surface Studio, as a toy. I'm sure it's still a great machine besides that, but I know I definitely wouldn't make good enough use of it - I'm just not that good an artist.

audunw 10y ago

> because they aren't going to make a touch screen MacOS (the right decision IMO). I think a lot boils down to this. People think "innovation" is making laptops into tablets. Seeing how many times Microsoft failed here, I agree that this is not the right decision. Maybe Microsoft is starting getting it right with Windows 10. But they've failed so many times up until now, and it's still not clear that they've nailed it yet. A key to good innovation, is to have the right innovation at the right time. Microsoft has tried to innovate by doing the same thing over and over, in different ways, until it succeeds. This may be fine for Microsoft, but it's in Apples culture to try to innovate by not innovating until they're sure they can get it right at the first try.