[JAG2012]

Unbeknownst to the anti-Microsoft media, they actually helped MSFT sell the 128GB. Glad to see the users ignore the garbage that the media has been spewing. Now we're back to real computing with the Surface Pro. I bought the 128GB on Saturday 10AM.

[GeekyGeezer]

Didn't the Zune also sell out on the day of release? The Surface Pro may or may not be a commercial success. It's too early to pass judgment one way or the other. Those that say the product is a flop or an innovative success are declaring the race is over when the horses are just arriving at the gate. Get over your wanton prejudices.

[GreenMountain]

did they sell out 200 or 20,000,000? without the actual number it does not mean anything. disappointed at the writing of the article.

[tommyboy14]

I hunted for this thing first thing in the morning on launch day. Why did they sell out? Because they put out a small inventory.

The Best Buy that I went to, right when it opened, had one in stock. ONE. That's all they got. In checking online inventory for nearly every other BB within 30 miles, they were all out - they probably each only got one.

Staples, where I ended up getting it, had - you guess it - ONE.

Easy to sell out with that kind of inventory. LOVE the product, but the marketing on the launch is all BS.

[tommyboy14]

Quote

Oh, come on. This "shortage" was a deliberate, cynical attempt to create an illusion of a sell out. Reports say that many (most?) stores got one or two units and that many got NONE. This, on the BIG opening day of sales? I don't think so. Hurray! The Surface Pro is an amazing success! It sold out within hours across the nation! Oh, and now it's a CRISIS! GIVE ME A BREAK! WHAT A PATHETIC PUBLICITY STUNT! Such claims are patently absurd. Yet THAT'S what's going to be reported on the brain dead alphabet network news and the bird-cage-liner press this evening! (NBC is already reporting: A SELL OUT!) (So, does ANYBODY in ANY part of the press ASK QUESTIONS anymore, or does everyone just edit press releases? For instance: "How MANY Surface Pros were available for sale at retail stores, Microsoft Stores and online today?" and "How MANY sold today?" How hard would that be to do?) BTW, anybody want to bet that suddenly a virutally unlimited number of Surface Pros will be available within a couple of days?

Yes it was. ONE at the local Best Buy store. Not even one of each model. Get... ONE.

[ChatTn23]

Quote

Reserved my 128 at BB last Sat., thing is AWESOME! CS5 AI, Photoshop, OFFICE Pro, Sketch Book Pro Installed, Having a blast and ready for work. Let's see an Ipad do this...Bahhahahahaha

rak1948
I assume that you actually got it as you don't state so. I have no problem with MS and the Surface. What I have problems with are people (like you) who compare the Surface Pro to the iPad. They are NOT the same thing. The MS product that is comparable to the iPad is the Surface RT and everybody knows how well that has done. I did not buy an iPad to do Photoshop, CS3/4/5/6, Office whatever, or Sketch Book Pro. But I do use it daily for work because a laptop is impractical and the Surface Pro would be overkill. Different people in different jobs have different needs and requirements and one size fits all does not work.

Thanks rak1948. Very good post and everyone should read it as an intelligent response to what many think is a complex problem. Decide what you will use it for and then shop. Don't shop and then be upset because it does not fit your needs.

[cyang00]

Quote

Heh. Let's see some hard numbers before we call this a success Microsoft. Let's not do an Amazon or Samsung and simply declare we did well and not release a single number. Do what Apple does and release SOLID numbers (3 million SOLD in the opening weekend for the mini) and then we can talk. Also, let's wait and see just how many of these are returned.

Troll! go back to your walled garden hole and play angry bird on your crApple device.

[MrHistamine]

Didn't the same thing happen with the Nexus 7 last year...? I believe the terms used then were "popular" and "a hit"; so, why is the selling out of the 128GB Surface Pro a "conspiracy" and "disappointment"?

And - like a few people have already stated - according to the media predictions, it wouldn't sell well anyway. And so, with today's news, there's only one way Microsoft can recover: shut it all down, and let Google and Apple battle it out (since, clearly, no one's happy no matter what they do...lol).

[karthiq]

Quote

Heh. Let's see some hard numbers before we call this a success Microsoft. Let's not do an Amazon or Samsung and simply declare we did well and not release a single number. Do what Apple does and release SOLID numbers (3 million SOLD in the opening weekend for the mini) and then we can talk. Also, let's wait and see just how many of these are returned. Troll! go back to your walled garden hole and play angry bird on your crApple device.

Take a deep breath and calm down.

[TechConc]

mulciber, on 10 February 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Look, the big conflict here has to do with what people expect from a device that is, essentially, a tablet. A tablet is for consumption, a computer (in the trad. understanding) is about production. This is a camel with a beak.

The "tablets are for consumption" notion is simply incorrect. If you haven't noticed, the industry is moving toward the direction of mobile products (smart phones, tablets, etc.). While they excel at consumption, they are most certainly not limited to it. I'm sure the dinosaurs weren't able to adapt when things changed either.

As for the surface pro, it's really competing more with "ultrabooks" than with competing tablets. It's priced more like an ultrabook. The hardware and software is more like an ultrabook. While it has more tablet like features, it also very much a hybrid product. It's not a better ultrabook than an ultrabook and it's not a better tablet than something like an iPad. It's a compromise. It's a camel with a beak as you say.

Quote

Even at 128 gig it's not enough to replace anything. You can't put archives or heavy image manipulation apps on it -- it's a device for receiving stuff and viewing it, and acting on it as necessary later, on a more functional device.

This line of thinking is a bit misguided. When you consider how 90% of the population actually uses their computers, you'll find that 128GB is just fine. No, it's not for heavy lifting and it won't replace more powerful computers, just as smaller cars don't replace bigger trucks. However, most people don't need a big truck for their daily commute to work. Tablets are like smaller cars. Before you know it, the highway is full with them because that's all most people actually need.

Quote

MS is going to continue to lose to Apple in this arena, because Apple is a hardware manufacturer that makes software just well enough that it fits their very carefully controlled platform deployment, and not one millimeter further. Whereas MS must satisfy the needs of users using lots of different species of hardware.

I agree that MS will continue to lose to Apple in this area, but it's not just because of MS having to support more varieties of hardware, etc. Yes, this allows Apple to better focus on new features and new products, but culturally, MS is a market follower. They've had a monopoly for years and have been able to get by with shipping "good enough" products that didn't need to be ground breaking in order to succeed. In the future, they're going to have to compete more on the merits of their product rather than just relying on a monopoly. I'm seeing iPads and iPhones in the enterprise market pretty heavily recently. Just a few years ago, that was unthinkable.

Quote

I just bought a desktop replacement notebook loaded with Win 8 and I basically have to ignore a ton of "trappings" to get down to the work I need to do. But thank goodness the hardware is capable and the OS will get out of the way enough not to trip me up (why I don't use Apple products). However, Apple has game on this, ultimately.

I'm not sure I understand your comments about the OS getting out of your way and how that relates to Apple products. That said, for me, I'm seeing less of a need for a laptop by having a tablet. I still use a desktop for things like gaming, video editing, media conversion, media server, etc. (you know, the heavy lifting). However, when you consider that tablet specific hardware and software are in their infancy and when you consider the rate in which their performance is increasing, it's not hard to see where this is going.

This post has been edited by TechConc: 12 February 2013 - 06:41 AM

[MrHistamine]

TechConc, on 12 February 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

I agree that MS will continue to lose to Apple in this area, but it's not just because of MS having to support more varieties of hardware, etc. Yes, this allows Apple to better focus on new features and new products, but culturally, MS is a market follower. They've had a monopoly for years and have been able to get by with shipping "good enough" products that didn't need to be ground breaking in order to succeed. In the future, they're going to have to compete more on the merits of their product rather than just relying on a monopoly. I'm seeing iPads and iPhones in the enterprise market pretty heavily recently. Just a few years ago, that was unthinkable.

I agree with everything you said, except for the paragraph above. In truth, Microsoft have made a number of excellent products, the public just doesn't care; they still see them as the desktop. And, that carries with it the fear of crashes, viruses, and an overall unpleasant experience. None of the current market leaders in smartphone, MP3, or other portable devices created the market, nor did they do anything "revolutionary"; they (like Microsoft), took existing concepts, and molded them into something they could make money on. And since they (and these other companies) have relatively massive amounts of marketing funds, they're able to inflate the bubble at a faster rate.

Microsoft have created a number of superb products...we, the public, just don't care (because, you know, Microsoft never makes anything good). At this point, Microsoft's biggest competitor, is Microsoft.

[TechConc]

MrHistamine, on 12 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

I agree with everything you said, except for the paragraph above. In truth, Microsoft have made a number of excellent products, the public just doesn't care; they still see them as the desktop. And, that carries with it the fear of crashes, viruses, and an overall unpleasant experience.

To be fair, I would absolutely agree that there are examples where Microsoft's products are excellent. Office, Visual Studio, etc. are a few obvious examples. However, historically, Microsoft has tried to compete in markets that are way beyond their core competency. I would also say, that Microsoft products being "excellent" is the exception rather than the rule. The "good enough" philosophy has worked well for them because of their near monopoly market status. They've also had a history of crushing competition through unfair practices such as bundling software deals, etc. in a way where their competitors could not compete.

Quote

None of the current market leaders in smartphone, MP3, or other portable devices created the market, nor did they do anything "revolutionary"; they (like Microsoft), took existing concepts, and molded them into something they could make money on. And since they (and these other companies) have relatively massive amounts of marketing funds, they're able to inflate the bubble at a faster rate.

I would disagree with this position. When there are fundamental changes in either technology or even market trends, it's fair to say they have been brought on by something "revolutionary". If we can't agree at that level, then there has never been anything "revolutionary" in the history of mankind because literally every invention and innovation is based on prior work at some level. Simply chalking up success to marketing is both naive and unfair to those actually did provide innovation and revolutionize an industry.

For example, you mention things like the smartphone market. The release of the iPhone for example was clearly a point of inflection by which you can clear see how things changed drastically after that point in time. It's not just a matter of which company started making money, but rather, how we use these devices has changed considerably since that time. Yes, smart phones existed before that time, but the release of that one product quickly made everything else feel like a dinosaur. Even Android prototypes of the time where essentially Blackberry rip-offs. Further, if it's just a matter of marketing as you suggest, then why wasn't the Zune, Windows Phone, Surface RT,etc. a success? Not to pick on Microsoft, I do believe they've been doing their best work recently. The point is, I've been deluged with Microsoft marketing over the past months and I don't see the success you speak of.

[dvmoo7]

Looks like this one is saying the BB in austin had 100 units which of course are now sold out. Interesting is this is true but he says MS put out 1 million for this first run. Which would be better or at least on par with ipad sales since everything across the US seems to have sold out in a few hrs..

[MrHistamine]

TechConc, on 12 February 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

To be fair, I would absolutely agree that there are examples where Microsoft's products are excellent. Office, Visual Studio, etc. are a few obvious examples. However, historically, Microsoft has tried to compete in markets that are way beyond their core competency. I would also say, that Microsoft products being "excellent" is the exception rather than the rule. The "good enough" philosophy has worked well for them because of their near monopoly market status. They've also had a history of crushing competition through unfair practices such as bundling software deals, etc. in a way where their competitors could not compete.

I don't disagree that they had a "good enough" approach to their products; my argument is: would the public care if they came out with something revolutionary? Microsoft has to fight the stigmatizm that their name carries; that may mean they'll have to take an Apple-style dive, before they gain any traction. I do agree that they had a "good enough" approach when the mobile computing market was non-existent, but now that it's expanded, I don't think that's the case. And, Microsoft does produce excellent products, more often than you think; people just like making a lot more noise when they screw something up.

TechConc, on 12 February 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

I would disagree with this position. When there are fundamental changes in either technology or even market trends, it's fair to say they have been brought on by something "revolutionary". If we can't agree at that level, then there has never been anything "revolutionary" in the history of mankind because literally every invention and innovation is based on prior work at some level. Simply chalking up success to marketing is both naive and unfair to those actually did provide innovation and revolutionize an industry.

Chalking it up to marketing is perfectly fair. How many ads did you see for the Windows, Palm, and Blackberry smartphones, prior to the iPhone? The market shifted, because Apple leveraged their iPod base. Suddenly, it made sense to have a phone that could do everything your iPod could (and wasn't running the mobile form of Windows). Microsoft employed a similar strategy with the Xbox: if it weren't for the superb marketing of the Xbox, it wouldn't have been a viable player in the console market. Aside from the hard drive, it didn't offer anything different from the Dreamcast. The iPhone was evolutionary, not revolutionary. It took the badly implemented technologies of current smartphones, and packaged them in an attractive, easy to use device. Then they marketed it like their lives depended on it.

TechConc, on 12 February 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

For example, you mention things like the smartphone market. The release of the iPhone for example was clearly a point of inflection by which you can clear see how things changed drastically after that point in time. It's not just a matter of which company started making money, but rather, how we use these devices has changed considerably since that time. Yes, smart phones existed before that time, but the release of that one product quickly made everything else feel like a dinosaur. Even Android prototypes of the time where essentially Blackberry rip-offs. Further, if it's just a matter of marketing as you suggest, then why wasn't the Zune, Windows Phone, Surface RT,etc. a success? Not to pick on Microsoft, I do believe they've been doing their best work recently. The point is, I've been deluged with Microsoft marketing over the past months and I don't see the success you speak of.

I don't dispute that the iPhone was integral in the shifting of the smartphone landscape, it just wasn't revolutionary. I still believe it was driven by marketing (in addition to their proven track record in portable entertainment). If we lived in a world where marketing and branding didn't matter, the landscape would be vastly different. I think Apple would still be successful; but, other devices would most likely be just as popular (Palm in particular).

And, the few months of Microsoft advertising, is nothing compared to the massive number of ads Apple has; let's give them at least 6 months before we declare their efforts a failure. Zune and Windows Phone didn't do well, because they weren't marketed nearly as well, and they were marketed as Microsoft products (and, honestly, no one wanted to deal with Microsoft on every device they own). Even the ratio of iPhone commercials, to (for a time) Android and WP7 commercials, was pretty bad (not to mention that asking about it in a wireless store, triggered the showing of a non-WP7 device). In my opinion, the Zune was mostly to appease the share holders who wanted Microsoft to get into the MP3 player game. It's a shame that they were pretty much through with it by the time the Zune HD came around.

[brucebro]

All I know is, I bought the Surface a month ago, knowing its limitations (compared with the upcoming Surface Pro), and I love it.The Surface Pro, with its total Windows compatibility is even better.

If people would stop mindlessly conforming and get off their automatic anti-Microsoft, pro-Apple mentality, this product will do very well. I'm not anti-apple, mind you, I also have an IPad. There is definitely a place in my house for both, for various reasons already spelled out by unbiased journalists. The Surface is a winner, in my book.

[LiveBrianD]

That was surprising - a standard mSATA drive in something this small? If only they hadn't made it hell to open it...

[WinTard]

LiveBrianD, on 13 February 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

That was surprising - a standard mSATA drive in something this small? If only they hadn't made it hell to open it...

Opening any tablet is hell. Period. Regardless of if it is an iPad, Samsung Nexus, BlackBerry Playbook.

However, the only tablet using a real SSD, is Microsoft Surface Pro. At least 10X the speed and performance of the latest 4th generation iPad no less.

WinTard, on 13 February 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Well I'd like to point out that the real SSD in the Surface Pro is of the mSATA variety, and on a socket. Which means it is field upgradeable. No soldering required.

AnandTech said:

http://www.anandtech...sata-ssd-inside

There are absolutely no comparison possible in terms of performance with all the other crippled low computational power tablets using the cheaper traditional Flash memory type. Performance in the Microsoft Surface Pro is at least at 10X what the latest 4th generation iPad could provide.

However, it doesn't consume 10X the power?

Now that's real technology and efficiency!

Not the mere meaningless specification numbers that Apple publishes, ironically claiming that specs don't matter?

I smell hypocrisy! What do you think the term 'Retina Display' boils down to? PPI (Pixel Per Inch)? isn't that also a mere spec? Hm.

Like I said before, it could be metaphorically approximated with comparing a Smart Car (which goes on highways) to other golf carts (all other crippled low computational power 32-bit ARM CPU based tablets). Similar in size, but vastly different in performance, range and capabilities.

AnandTech said:

http://www.anandtech...ce-pro-review/7

And this is perhaps why Apple claims they don't care about specs. Or so they want us to believe. Preferring style over substance, form over function.

I truly believe all this negative press in the media, is the result of a conspiracy orchestrated to discredit Microsoft and their state-of-the-art offerings.

Now to determine the culprit(s), just follow the money, and see who has to gain?

~~~~~~~~~~
Those who make their dress a principal part of themselves, will, in general, become of no more value than their dress.
~ William Hazlitt

Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
~ Mark Twain

The great victories are never won in the first blow.
~ Johan Falkberget

Follow the dirt and it leads to money.
~ René Descartes, French philosopher 1596-1650.

[LiveBrianD]

WinTard, on 15 February 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 13 February 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

That was surprising - a standard mSATA drive in something this small? If only they hadn't made it hell to open it...

Opening any tablet is hell. Period. Regardless of if it is an iPad, Samsung Nexus, BlackBerry Playbook.

However, the only tablet using a real SSD, is Microsoft Surface Pro. At least 10X the speed and performance of the latest 4th generation iPad no less.

WinTard, on 13 February 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Well I'd like to point out that the real SSD in the Surface Pro is of the mSATA variety, and on a socket. Which means it is field upgradeable. No soldering required.

AnandTech said:

http://www.anandtech...sata-ssd-inside

There are absolutely no comparison possible in terms of performance with all the other crippled low computational power tablets using the cheaper traditional Flash memory type. Performance in the Microsoft Surface Pro is at least at 10X what the latest 4th generation iPad could provide.

However, it doesn't consume 10X the power?

Now that's real technology and efficiency!

Not the mere meaningless specification numbers that Apple publishes, ironically claiming that specs don't matter?

I smell hypocrisy! What do you think the term 'Retina Display' boils down to? PPI (Pixel Per Inch)? isn't that also a mere spec? Hm.

Like I said before, it could be metaphorically approximated with comparing a Smart Car (which goes on highways) to other golf carts (all other crippled low computational power 32-bit ARM CPU based tablets). Similar in size, but vastly different in performance, range and capabilities.

AnandTech said:

http://www.anandtech...ce-pro-review/7

And this is perhaps why Apple claims they don't care about specs. Or so they want us to believe. Preferring style over substance, form over function.

I truly believe all this negative press in the media, is the result of a conspiracy orchestrated to discredit Microsoft and their state-of-the-art offerings.

Now to determine the culprit(s), just follow the money, and see who has to gain?

~~~~~~~~~~
Those who make their dress a principal part of themselves, will, in general, become of no more value than their dress.
~ William Hazlitt

Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
~ Mark Twain

The great victories are never won in the first blow.
~ Johan Falkberget

Follow the dirt and it leads to money.
~ René Descartes, French philosopher 1596-1650.

Surprisingly enough, the ASUS Nexus 7 isn't that bad: http://www.ifixit.co...Teardown/9623/3 It would be best if they just put in a few screws though...

[TechConc]

MrHistamine, on 12 February 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

my argument is: would the public care if they came out with something revolutionary? Microsoft has to fight the stigmatizm that their name carries; that may mean they'll have to take an Apple-style dive, before they gain any traction.

Yes, the public would absolutely care if Microsoft (or anyone else) did something revolutionary. The problem is, they haven't. I'm not bashing Windows 8 / Surface at all here. But let's be honest, they've not leap frogged anyone, they are just now getting back into the game with a product that is at least competitive. That's great, but it's not enough to change the market momentum their way. They need to fundamentally change the game in their favor to start getting the traction they desire. Tiles are interesting, but lets be honest here... there's nothing revolutionary about them and in many even see them as a distraction. The Surface Pro is the jack of all trades but master of none device. Quite honestly, it's more competing with ultrabooks than with tablets.

Quote

Chalking it up to marketing is perfectly fair. How many ads did you see for the Windows, Palm, and Blackberry smartphones, prior to the iPhone? The market shifted, because Apple leveraged their iPod base. Suddenly, it made sense to have a phone that could do everything your iPod could (and wasn't running the mobile form of Windows).

While Apple did have momentum from the iPad, they were still less of a household name than Microsoft at the time. The iPod was a best in class device from the hardware design to the software integration with iTunes, etc. The iPhone fundamentally changed how we used phones. Did you ever user your web browser on your phone before the iPhone came out? I had a web browser but never used it because of how terrible the experience was. I know we won't agree on what was revolutionary here, but again, when people make fundamental changes on how they use a device, that implies revolutionary to me.

Quote

The iPhone was evolutionary, not revolutionary. It took the badly implemented technologies of current smartphones, and packaged them in an attractive, easy to use device. Then they marketed it like their lives depended on it.

This is a bit of revisionist history here... If you take a look at Apple's advertising / marketing budget, you'd be surprised at how low it is. When the iPhone came out, it was given free publicity from every trade magazine, web site, etc.. Why? Marketing? No. Because it was a revolutionary product. It set the benchmark for that product category from the day it was introduced.

So... that said, I'd like to hear of a few examples of products that you feel were revolutionary along with a description of why they were.