4 ms·
I think part of this comes from the abstractions used for tablets vs. "traditional" computers. (With the surface being viewed as a tablet by most consumers, vs.
by incongruity 14y ago
I think part of this comes from the abstractions used for tablets vs. "traditional" computers. (With the surface being viewed as a tablet by most consumers, vs. the air being seen as a traditional laptop).
In tablets, the trend seems to be to abstract away/hide the OS as much as possible – it isn't something that runs on the machine, it is the machine – if that makes sense. Compare this to the laptop world where we're all engrained to conceive of the OS as something that is installed on the machine and in most/all cases is able to be swapped out (insert plug for your favorite Linux distro here, etc.)
So, given that, most consumers willingly accept the space the OS takes up as a given on the laptop yet the same people see the listing the tablet storage including the space required for the OS as disingenuous.
When you want to abstract away something, if your abstraction leaks, it usually hampers the user experience or user perception of the offering – as this case illustrates (IMHO).
- barista 14y agoActually for Microsoft a tablet was always a fully capable computer. It's apple who came up with a big iPod touch and started calling it a tablet.
- incongruity 14y agoYes, but how do consumers see it? It's framed as competing with the iPad - and most see it as a tablet, I'd wager.
- scholia 14y agoThe Surface RT is a tablet (that also happens to run Microsoft Office). The Surface Pro is a PC (that also happens to work as a tablet). I can understand consumers being confused (though I have no evidence that they are) but surely it's not too hard for HN readers to understand...