Probably the harshest "review" I've read in a while but seems accurate. This is supposed to be the budget ("Go") product and there's nothing budget about its $1k price tag.
Either Microsoft is completely incompetent in its supply chain management since a comparable Asus, HP, Dell laptop is at most 1/2 price for similar specs. Or grossly overpricing the design. Heck even the reviewer mentioned a $300 Gateway laptop surpassing this easily.
No wonder Panos Panay jumped ship. Uncertain whether he signed off on one this willingly or forced to.
Microsoft is trying to anchor the price of their more expensive laptops. When the "low-end" laptops start at $999, charging $1500+ for a "mid-range" laptop doesn't seem so outrageous anymore.
I don’t see how you can pass off Windows as being a good software experience. The default experience is stuffed full of ads, and it’s only getting worse.
HW+SW integration is Apple’s whole schtick. I can just put an iPad next to my Macbook and it turns into a secondary display.
I have not seen glaring UI bugs until I switched to Apple. Given how little features they offer, you'd think they can do better. I have not seen such bugs on Windows. Windows it's like a bazaar somethimes but at least it works and you can do whatever you like. Apple only had hw build quality on their side and that is true only for their laptops now.
I wonder if this was made targeting enterprise. Microsoft shops that don't spend much time crunching what they're paying per user, or were already used to paying ~$1000. It's a safe choice cause it's made by Microsoft. IT is probably already in the swing of deploying Surface devices. No backlit keyboard because people are gonna be using it during the day in a lit office. Makes sense from that perspective.
Enterprises don't pay $1000 for their laptops anyway. They demand big volume discounts. I really really wish I could buy a ThinkPad for what my work buys them for. But I can't.
This is the healthcare gambit then? Jack up prices so that the discounts you offer seem reasonable, to the point anyone paying the regular price is just getting scammed?
Kinda, yeah. I'm pretty sure this is why thinkpads are so expensive. They mainly sell to enterprises who always demand massive discounts so I guess they inflate the RRP a bit to end up with a profit.
Especially considering margin on laptops is normally only around 10% AFAIK and we really get much more discount than that.
Why is Microsoft making laptops period? I understand the actual Surface tablet thing is a wacky hangover from the Windows 8/Ballmer days, but these just seem to be competing with the billion other Windows laptop makers. Huh?
1. There was a long time where Windows laptop makers failed to make a device with the premium feel of the Macbook and the intitial Surface Laptop was meant to cater to that market. Still kind of true, the Dell XPS is the only one that seems to be targeting that market these days
2. The surface tablet was to promote the "converged" windows 8 experience since traditional Windows laptop manufacturers were more interested in pursuing android tablets at that time.
3. To have a test bed to try out ideas that may not take off enough that other manufacturers won't try them (S mode, etc.)
These are mostly the reasons it felt they got into the market, and everything since has just felt like a business unit producing new stuff because it already exists so people are going to do what they're employed to do, rather than a big strategic play. It makes about $2 billion, and is presumably profitable if it's been left just continue for so long, even if it's not particularly exciting these days.
Too many have given up on naming, it seems. Apple has always been bad at it, so every listing has a bunch of qualifiers like the generation and processor included. Nintendo gave up a while ago too, with Wii>Wii U, 3DS>New Nintendo 3DS, Switch>Switch OLED Model. Of course there's Microsoft with the XBox 360>Xbox One>Xbox One S/X>Xbox Series S/X, so their bad naming touches everything. I'm not able to think of any other examples but these are huge companies with confusing name choices and I guess I don't know if there's a better option lol
22 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 56.5 ms ] threadEither Microsoft is completely incompetent in its supply chain management since a comparable Asus, HP, Dell laptop is at most 1/2 price for similar specs. Or grossly overpricing the design. Heck even the reviewer mentioned a $300 Gateway laptop surpassing this easily.
No wonder Panos Panay jumped ship. Uncertain whether he signed off on one this willingly or forced to.
That's the whole reason this thing exists
MS could have at least beaten Apple on RAM and SSD specs, where Apple charges $200 extra for $20 worth of hardware… but they didn't.
HW+SW integration is Apple’s whole schtick. I can just put an iPad next to my Macbook and it turns into a secondary display.
What ringing praise. Yikes, this review is worse than if they had just said "I hate this thing and it has no redeeming qualities".
Especially considering margin on laptops is normally only around 10% AFAIK and we really get much more discount than that.
2. The surface tablet was to promote the "converged" windows 8 experience since traditional Windows laptop manufacturers were more interested in pursuing android tablets at that time.
3. To have a test bed to try out ideas that may not take off enough that other manufacturers won't try them (S mode, etc.)
These are mostly the reasons it felt they got into the market, and everything since has just felt like a business unit producing new stuff because it already exists so people are going to do what they're employed to do, rather than a big strategic play. It makes about $2 billion, and is presumably profitable if it's been left just continue for so long, even if it's not particularly exciting these days.