4 ms·

Isn't this supposed to be expensive, to be in the place where 90% of other Windows RT tablet manufacturers will look UP to, but cut down on little details to ke

by nnq 14y ago

Isn't this supposed to be expensive, to be in the place where 90% of other Windows RT tablet manufacturers will look UP to, but cut down on little details to keep the price low and another 10% of them to take it as a lowest feature set and build up from it for the PURE LUXURY segment above? (I know, this is not a strategy to sell a lot of products, but it's a good strategy for building a thriving and healthy ecosystem around the product, and Microsoft seems to get this more and more, same as they seem to get open-source on the Azure and to open up in other ways... they finally realized that they are A DINOSAUR (more in the size meaning than in the backwardsness) and they need around them an ecosystem rich enough to support dinosaurs too, in order to survive!)

takluyver 14y ago
It's an interesting theory, but Google's experience with Android tablets suggests that it needs a flagship device at a popular price to take off. And in the luxury sector, that price leaves little room below Apple, whose tablets are perceived as the gold standard. Also, perusing recent announcements, OEMs don't seem to have much interest in going for lower prices. I guess the cheaper tablets will come post-launch, but they'll be on the defensive against Android tablets.
- nnq 14y ago
  I think Google aimed for the "below iPad" segment from the beginning and tend to think this was a smart move for them as they achieved fast growth. ...but Ms seems to be directly targeting the iPad segment, because pricewise this is not the "luxury segment" anymore, it's the segment of the users that actually want to do WORK, not just consume entertainment, on these devices and Ms wants them because they will spend more on all the productivity tools they need and they will be able to buy from Ms.
simba-hiiipower 14y ago
i think that’s the point most people are missing. while i personally would have liked to see it priced a bit lower (starting at $400 - $450 would have felt about right to me), i can totally see why they didn’t and i think those arguing for a lower price are being too short-sighted. this isn’t just the launch of a single device, it’s also effectively a launch of a new platform, and the success of the latter is far more important.. as they said from day one (and as i'm sure they were repeatedly emphasizing to their hardware partners over the past few months), they aren’t going to undercut OEMs on price. which makes total sense. they’re not Apple; it’s going to take more than one device to grow the platform and they’re playing to where they always play in the market: offering Windows on as wide a variety of devices and form-factors as possible (now also including some built in-house). undercutting other offerings may have boosted Surface sales in the near-term, but overtime it would have probably crippled broader adoption of Windows RT by alienating the OEMs that are critical in pushing it. the general argument for a cheap(er) Surface RT is that it’s needed to help grow the Windows Store. while i think it would help to some extent, most of that comes in just the fact that it’s out there, as a flagship device, representing the platform in the market. i think their approach of relying on the large (soon-to-be) Windows 8 install base to incentivize developers is a far sounder strategy for building it out.. even at a lower price point, a few million additional Surface RT units (maybe) aren’t going to have as large of an impact on demand for Windows Store Apps as the hundreds of millions of devices that will eventually be running Windows 8; what it would have done though is likely alienate the OEMs that would otherwise be pushing those sales, and eventually Windows RT sales down the road.

by nnq 14y ago

takluyver 14y ago

It's an interesting theory, but Google's experience with Android tablets suggests that it needs a flagship device at a popular price to take off. And in the luxury sector, that price leaves little room below Apple, whose tablets are perceived as the gold standard. Also, perusing recent announcements, OEMs don't seem to have much interest in going for lower prices. I guess the cheaper tablets will come post-launch, but they'll be on the defensive against Android tablets.

nnq 14y ago
I think Google aimed for the "below iPad" segment from the beginning and tend to think this was a smart move for them as they achieved fast growth. ...but Ms seems to be directly targeting the iPad segment, because pricewise this is not the "luxury segment" anymore, it's the segment of the users that actually want to do WORK, not just consume entertainment, on these devices and Ms wants them because they will spend more on all the productivity tools they need and they will be able to buy from Ms.

simba-hiiipower 14y ago

i think that’s the point most people are missing. while i personally would have liked to see it priced a bit lower (starting at $400 - $450 would have felt about right to me), i can totally see why they didn’t and i think those arguing for a lower price are being too short-sighted. this isn’t just the launch of a single device, it’s also effectively a launch of a new platform, and the success of the latter is far more important.. as they said from day one (and as i'm sure they were repeatedly emphasizing to their hardware partners over the past few months), they aren’t going to undercut OEMs on price. which makes total sense. they’re not Apple; it’s going to take more than one device to grow the platform and they’re playing to where they always play in the market: offering Windows on as wide a variety of devices and form-factors as possible (now also including some built in-house). undercutting other offerings may have boosted Surface sales in the near-term, but overtime it would have probably crippled broader adoption of Windows RT by alienating the OEMs that are critical in pushing it. the general argument for a cheap(er) Surface RT is that it’s needed to help grow the Windows Store. while i think it would help to some extent, most of that comes in just the fact that it’s out there, as a flagship device, representing the platform in the market. i think their approach of relying on the large (soon-to-be) Windows 8 install base to incentivize developers is a far sounder strategy for building it out.. even at a lower price point, a few million additional Surface RT units (maybe) aren’t going to have as large of an impact on demand for Windows Store Apps as the hundreds of millions of devices that will eventually be running Windows 8; what it would have done though is likely alienate the OEMs that would otherwise be pushing those sales, and eventually Windows RT sales down the road.