It is not apples and oranges. People making a utility-based purchasing decision can only compare the 1st generation Surface to the 4th generation iPad. The amo

It is not apples and oranges. People making a utility-based purchasing decision can only compare the 1st generation Surface to the 4th generation iPad. The amount of R&D has no relevance to a consumer. The relevant thing is how much value the device provides. I agree that the expectation and advantage is to have your tablet serve as your one and only computer. But this will never be actually true since most people will actually have to carry around a phone (or phablet). The portability and availability of a phone will beat out that of a tablet. Try jogging with a tablet. What a tablet currently buys you is a larger screen and a keyboard that you can type on for awhile. A truer statement may be that this tablet's aim is to take on additional functionality found in desktops and laptops and not found in other tablets. In Microsoft's mind, that functionality is Office and access the file system. You can plug in microSD and USD into an iPad. You need the accessories. Agree that they don't let you use external storage. If you want open computing, you shouldn't be picking Microsoft, nor Apple, nor Google. Are you saying that you want to depend on an entity whose sole purpose is to make money to supply you with open source code in the long run? How about Oracle with Java? Or Compuserve with gif? Corporations don't even trust other corporations with key technologies without making them open source or FRAND. If you truly want open source, you should be branching Android and replacing or removing Google services with open source alternatives.