[RegulatorCountry]

... but it’s not a new thing, it’s old things shoehorned into someone else’s new thing for market diiferentiation.

It’s a netbook with a touchscreen, apparently, but that is yet to be seen in the wild. Of what utility is the redundancy in comparison to a netbook, ultrabook or Macbook Air? Particularly with the likely price premium.

Microsoft fans could just purchase a cheap Asus along with an Android tablet and come out ahead monetarily, without a garbled, bowdlerized half measure untried device.

[adorno]

... but it’s not a new thing, it’s old things shoehorned into someone else’s new thing for market diiferentiation.

You must be new to this technological age.

Look, a device that becomes popular, no matter what the technology inside, is one that, if successful, everybody else is going to emulate and enter the market to compete. The fact is that, what Apple or Google have created, have also been done in the past, with smartphones and tablets. It's just that, making the technology "look" different and cool, is what sells, and so, the Apple and Google gadgets don't really create a new paradigm in technology, but, they do create a form of fanaticism which makes people think that, it's different and cool, and they must have it.

Besides, what's wrong with taking a mouse-trap, and improving upon it, to the point that, people might decide that, the newer mouse trap is "what they've been needing and wanting" all along?

It’s a netbook with a touchscreen, apparently, but that is yet to be seen in the wild. Of what utility is the redundancy in comparison to a netbook, ultrabook or Macbook Air? Particularly with the likely price premium.

Go a little further in your dismissive-ness, and call "just computers" with different looks. That is what they are, after all. But, it's like when you purchase a car. You can buy a car for the basic purposes of transportation, and call it quits. Or, you buy a car that offers other comforts and will last longer and looks better, and performs better, with a few more functions on the side. That is what the Surface is offering to do with the tablet market; give you more of the same, but with a lot more functionality and additional tools to make them productive and attractive. What is wrong with that?

Me, personally, I'll be waiting a bit longer to get my hands on an ultrabook with at least a terabyte of storage, and super-duper processor capabilities, at least 8 gigabytes of main memory, and the features that scream "productivity", with a nice super-high-definition screen. I'll be looking for the Intel-based Surface, to use while on-the-road, because, it's a lot more than "just a tablet" meant for media consumption and for checking e-mail and for Facebook use. Oh, and they better have at least 8 hrs of battery life, and not bite too much into my budget; so around $800 is what I'll be willing to put out, which means that, I'll have to wait a bit for the Surface tablets to come down in price.

Microsoft fans could just purchase a cheap Asus along with an Android tablet and come out ahead monetarily, without a garbled, bowdlerized half measure untried device.

Yet, those wouldn't be the same, would they?

The Asus tablets are not optimized for touch, and they're still not using Windows 8, which is the OS for tablets. They're nice equipment, and nice as tablets, but, it's they're not good for replacing iPads or even the Android-based tablets. That's what Surfaces are intended to replace.

BTW, I wouldn't mind having iPads or Android tablets that could be used for productivity as the Surfaces devices will do. They're actually nice tablets, but, they're lacking a lot. Perhaps in another future update, they'll gain that kind of function.

BTW, I look at Android tablets as dead-end equipment, and they will go the same way as the Linux netbooks of a few years ago, which got destroyed once Microsoft put Windows XP in them.

BTW, I agree with you on one simple statement: the Surfaces are "untried devices". But, like anything that is new, they are all untried, and if anyone is going to base their purchasing decisions on only buying "the tried devices", then, technology would never move forward, and nothing new would ever get invented and would never see the light of day.

[adorno]

... but it’s not a new thing, it’s old things shoehorned into someone else’s new thing for market diiferentiation.

You must be new to this technological age.

Look, a device that becomes popular, no matter what the technology inside, is one that, if successful, everybody else is going to emulate and enter the market to compete. The fact is that, what Apple or Google have created, have also been done in the past, with smartphones and tablets. It's just that, making the technology "look" different and cool, is what sells, and so, the Apple and Google gadgets don't really create a new paradigm in technology, but, they do create a form of fanaticism which makes people think that, it's different and cool, and they must have it.

Besides, what's wrong with taking a mouse-trap, and improving upon it, to the point that, people might decide that, the newer mouse trap is "what they've been needing and wanting" all along?

It’s a netbook with a touchscreen, apparently, but that is yet to be seen in the wild. Of what utility is the redundancy in comparison to a netbook, ultrabook or Macbook Air? Particularly with the likely price premium.

Go a little further in your dismissive-ness, and call "just computers" with different looks. That is what they are, after all. But, it's like when you purchase a car. You can buy a car for the basic purposes of transportation, and call it quits. Or, you buy a car that offers other comforts and will last longer and looks better, and performs better, with a few more functions on the side. That is what the Surface is offering to do with the tablet market; give you more of the same, but with a lot more functionality and additional tools to make them productive and attractive. What is wrong with that?

Me, personally, I'll be waiting a bit longer to get my hands on an ultrabook with at least a terabyte of storage, and super-duper processor capabilities, at least 8 gigabytes of main memory, and the features that scream "productivity", with a nice super-high-definition screen. I'll be looking for the Intel-based Surface, to use while on-the-road, because, it's a lot more than "just a tablet" meant for media consumption and for checking e-mail and for Facebook use. Oh, and they better have at least 8 hrs of battery life, and not bite too much into my budget; so around $800 is what I'll be willing to put out, which means that, I'll have to wait a bit for the Surface tablets to come down in price.

Microsoft fans could just purchase a cheap Asus along with an Android tablet and come out ahead monetarily, without a garbled, bowdlerized half measure untried device.

Yet, those wouldn't be the same, would they?

The Asus tablets are not optimized for touch, and they're still not using Windows 8, which is the OS for tablets. They're nice equipment, and nice as tablets, but, it's they're not good for replacing iPads or even the Android-based tablets. That's what Surfaces are intended to replace.

BTW, I wouldn't mind having iPads or Android tablets that could be used for productivity as the Surfaces devices will do. They're actually nice tablets, but, they're lacking a lot. Perhaps in another future update, they'll gain that kind of function.

BTW, I look at Android tablets as dead-end equipment, and they will go the same way as the Linux netbooks of a few years ago, which got destroyed once Microsoft put Windows XP in them.

BTW, I agree with you on one simple statement: the Surfaces are "untried devices". But, like anything that is new, they are all untried, and if anyone is going to base their purchasing decisions on only buying "the tried devices", then, technology would never move forward, and nothing new would ever get invented and would never see the light of day.