Various outlets have speculated (because the prices haven't been announced yet) that the RT should retail in the $600-800 range and the Pro in the $800-1000 range. There are two issues to note, though.
First, you don't know what losses Microsoft is willing to take in order to penetrate the market. MS took some serious losses with both the Xbox and Kinect hardware in order to drive game & software purchases/marketshare. The components should cost in the ranges outlined above IF MS doesn't subsidize the product by taking a hit on price. Which they might do.
Second, you have to look at what is competing with what. The Surface RT is the primary competitor for the Ipad market, as the processors and specs are similar (if not slightly inferior). So the pricing should be around that of an Ipad. But the Surface Pro has the same specs as an ultrabook(!), meaning that it delivers full PC functionality in a tablet form. When you consider that the MacBook Air has a similar spec sheet (Intel i5 processor, onboard Intel graphics, an 11" screen, etc.) and retails for $999, you are getting a comparable (if not superior, based on its compatibility with all of the MS/business software) machine at the same price point and in tablet form! For a business, this is an amazing product. Why would I buy a MacBook Air when I could get a tablet that I can use as a workstation when needed?
Thank you, that’s helpful. I have an iMac and an iPad. I have been thinking of getting an Apple notebook, but maybe a Surface would be just as good.
Thank you, that’s helpful. I have an iMac and an iPad. I have been thinking of getting an Apple notebook, but maybe a Surface would be just as good.
The processor spec is a hard one, especially considering that with a tablet it has to be taken with battery life. How little power it sips is an important processor spec these days.
So, how do they stack up? The iPad has much better graphics (three times as powerful), but most of that extra power goes into feeding that ultra high-resolution screen. So in the end that is pretty much a wash.
CPU is where they heavily differentiate. The Tegra 3 has an interesting system, 4 high-clock cores and one low-clock cores. Most of the base functions can be accomplished by the low-clock core at the cost of very little battery life, which is great if your software can stay in that mode most of the time. But it can very quickly it can scale up all cores, which at about 1.4 GHz will suck your battery dry fast. The A5X just has two slower cores. It will not beat the pure CPU performance of the Tegra, in fact the Tegra is about twice as fast, but battery life will be more consistent on the iPad. So, if you want an ARM tablet that can run the most demanding apps, to hell with battery life, you want a Tegra 3.
When you consider that the MacBook Air has a similar spec sheet (Intel i5 processor, onboard Intel graphics, an 11" screen, etc.) and retails for $999, you are getting a comparable (if not superior, based on its compatibility with all of the MS/business software) machine at the same price point and in tablet form!
I don't think it can replace ultrabooks that well. Most people I see using them are on the go. It's on the lap while typing, or on one arm. The Surface can't do that. It must be on a large, hard surface for the attached keyboard idea to work, and that limits its usefulness.
Why would I buy a MacBook Air when I could get a tablet that I can use as a workstation when needed?
That's where the Air really runs out ahead. Workstation to me (and to most) doesn't mean 10" screen. It means docking, using an external monitor and mouse (and maybe keyboard). The Air can run an external 2560x1600 display through the Thunderbolt connector. It can even run an external desktop-class graphics card. I doubt the Surface will be capable of more than 1080p externally.
Right now the ultimate in portable workstations is the new Macbook Pro. It can run two 2560x1600 Thunderbolt displays, a third running 1920x1200 through HDMI passthrough on the last Thunderbolt display, and its own screen all at the same time. Independent tests say you can run video on all screens simultaneously with no lag. And it does all that while being very thin.