The Apple Core

Jason D. O'Grady & David Morgenstern

Microsoft aims to tackle Apple’s iPad with Surface 2.0? Who are they kidding?

By | December 28, 2011, 11:56pm PST

Redmond will be pitching its next-generation Surface technology at the National Retail Federation show in January. Yet again. How can Microsoft executives believe that its Surface 2.0 collaboration technology will fare any better against the iPad now than before?

According to Mary Jo Foley at All About Microsoft, the Surface 2.0 platform, produced by hardware partner Samsung, was supposed to ship in 2011. The production units may be rolled out at the retail show, she said.

Microsoft announced in mid-November that Samsung had begun taking pre-orders for the SUR40, which will ultimately ship in 23 countries. They also acknowledged the list price was $8,900. Earlier this year, Microsoft and Samsung had said to expect the system to be priced around $7,600.

Likely the Surface marketing group in Redmond and a few directors walking the top floors of the Samsung Electronics chaebol in Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul, must be wearing frowns. Surface in both Versions 1.0 and 2.0 is still mostly a bunch of expensive concept demos.

Surface was a great idea — for Microsoft and Samsung. The concept leveraged Microsoft’s input and graphics technology as well as the usual software-side productivity products; and it provided a new market for Samsung’s big LCD screens and computers. And here would be a market where margins could still be found, unlike that of commoditized high-definition televisions.

But no, Apple iPad broke the model for multitouch collaboration economics. From its beginnings, the iPad’s apps along with iOS provided a rich environment for two or maybe three persons to collaborate. There are many deployments of the iPad in business and enterprise with this very feature in mind.

Certainly, Surface 2.0 can’t be said to be exactly what retailers might want during a recession: a large, expensive kiosk that supports collaboration between two or three users. Especially when compared with the iPad, a relatively inexpensive and proven collaboration platform.

At the Microsoft Surface blog, Microsoft reported on several applications demonstrated in the fall, particularly from Dassault Aviation, a military aviation company. Is this the vertical market that Microsoft and Samsung are seeking? It’s a  market sector known for expensive toys and visuals. (Is it right that the Surface team proudly shows off the results of their collaboration effort in sketches on a whiteboard?)

It appears to the casual observer that for the cost of the Surface boxes, a company could buy a couple of iPads and actually hire staff to show the demo, like at a trade show.

A year and a half ago, I pointed out the basic problems for Microsoft and Surface. Nothing has changed. Too little, too late, and too expensive. In fact, everything is worse with millions of iPads in the wild.

Check Out: Prediction hell: How dumb do Bill Gates & Microsoft’s iPad, Surface predictions look now?

Here’s a guess: Based on the timelines needed for hardware development, tooling and production, Microsoft Surface and the iPad may have been conceived around the same time. Each took a different tack towards collaboration. Why Microsoft took the Pong model we won’t know. With the release of the iPad, Apple’s approach seems obvious. Of course, it ain’t.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Morgenstern has covered the Mac market and other technology segments for 20 years.

Disclosure

David Morgenstern

Freelance journalist/blogger David Morgenstern has nothing to disclose.

Biography

David Morgenstern

David Morgenstern has covered the Mac market and other technology segments for 20 years. In the recent past, he founded Ziff-Davis' Storage Supersite, served as news editor for Ziff Davis Internet and held several executive editorial positions at eWEEK. In the 1990s, David was editor of Ziff Davis' award-winning MacWEEK news publication as well as its successor title, eMediaWEEKly, which focused on multiplatform professional content creation. His byline can be found online and in print publications including CreativePro.com, Peachpit Press' Mac Bible and Popular Photography.

75
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft aims to tackle Apple's iPad with Surface 2.0? Who are they kidding?
ccrockett@... 3rd Jan
@godsfault Oh so sensitive! Are you going to hand out iPads to customers in a retail environment, of course not! Surface is a great way to create interactive displays and marketing materials. Again, I know it is hard to understand but a 10 inch slate, locked into Apple gated community isn't even remotely similar to a large format, super mutli-touch, multi-person kiosk computer. This article almost as ridicules as your comment Mr. Godsfault.
First I've heard of this product. Now am I missing something here or is this basically just a big touch-screen vdu with a built in computer?
Somehow I can't see this becoming a mass market technology. Expensive executive toy maybe.
@AndyPagin Surface Computing was awesome when it was debuted and actually is still impressive today! The problem with it is the price! They wanted $15k back when it released.
0 Votes
+ -
The problem with Surface ...
wackoae 29th Dec
@Peter Perry Surface is a "cool gadget" with basically no real world usage.

The majority of the Surface tables manufactured today are currently in Microsoft stores. People play with it for a few minutes, then walk away .... bored.

While the iPad added a different kind of portability (lets face facts, you can do the same work with a laptop), the surface is neither portable or even an enhancement to usability. It is pretty much nothing more than a big flat table with a touch screen "faked" with calibrated cameras. It isn't even that good at presentations .... because you have to be on the "right" side to view the imaging in the right angle.
0 Votes
+ -
wackoae, that's not true at all
William Farrel 29th Dec
@Peter Perry
The majority of the Surface tables manufactured today are currently in Microsoft stores.

If you read some of the articles about it, you can see that some large companies have already bought and use quite a few of the previous model, while those and others have plans to buy this new version and expand.

Why you want to hide that fact and claim only MS stores have them shows you either fear the product, or haven't done enough research.
0 Votes
+ -
Though in all fairness, wackoae
William Farrel 29th Dec
@wackoae
if you walk into any Apple store , you see the same thing with regards to the iPad - People play with it for a few minutes, then walk away .... bored.

most people don't play with an unpersonalized display model for hours on end, so not sure of your point.

Though you do seem to really fear it taking off, which doesn't make any sense.
@William Farrel
I think Microsoft is the still the biggest monopolist in the tech company and would much rather see other competitors so in a way we both want the same thing. For MS to have more "successes" like the Surface.
@William Farrel The difference is that those display models might get some people to actually buy one and walk out with one. The average person cannot walk into a MSFT store, "buy" a surface table and "walk" out with one.
0 Votes
+ -
@aristotle_z
MS has the stores, they display something they're making to the general public while it's fulfilling a need ate the locatiosn, so what?

You mean the people that make up businesses aren't from "the general public"?
@WilliamFarrell
You can't really say the same about the iPad as the iPad has had blockbuster sales after people have played around with them and surface has not.
@AndyPagin
I don't think its a toy, but actually something they are marketing to commercial and other businesses that can maximize the tech in lobbies and information stations and such. I don't know why they think its an ipad competitor as I think they are marketing it not to regular consumers as you can see they are debuting it at a Nation Retial Federation show, so that kind of says it all right there. I thnk Windows 8 is the ipad competitor in their minds, so not sure who thought they were using this to compete with ipads. Plus ipads as kiosks really isn't that great with the size and all when you have mulitple people around the kiosk. People will have to move out the way so others can see what they want, so I think a big touchscreen kiosk is the way to go.
@AndyPagin...you're missing quite a lot and I'd recommend you go to the Surface 2.0 website if you want to learn more about it. The fact the authors are comparing a 10" iPad to a 40" SUR40 is completely ridiculous for a number of reasons with the primary being that the iPad is a consumer device whereas the SUR40 is designed solely for business application.
@AndyPagin maybe just to be used in movies that want a hi-tech look. So only one needs to be made and can be rented out to studios.
The question is not who are they kidding, but who are you kidding with this article. Surface is never meant to compete with tablet. It's a different product, for a completely different market.It's comparing apples to oranges. Now if you want a BS header to attract clicks, that's another story. Apart from that Surface is a brilliant product with a lot of potential.
@kalodev@... Agreed. We've been making touch computers for the best part of a decade. They sell in a vertical, where an iPad wouldn't last 10 minutes!

The bulky stainless steel house and resistive 19" screen may not win any design prizes and it won't appeal to the Caf?? Latte brigade - the power cable being a big problem for them - but it is perfect for its target market.

It is IP65 water and dust resistant, can be operated by worker wearing chain mail gloves and the cleaning crew can hose the blood off of it at the end of the day with a high pressure hose and chemicals.

In the same way, the surface isn't aimed at the iPad crowd, it is designed for those very verticals DM mentioned in his post.

Not every product is mass market and not every product will attract a mass market following. Maybe in a few years, once the cost of the technology comes down, it could be used in living rooms or as a replacement for the dining table, but that isn't the current market that Microsoft are aiming for.

Why does everything have to be an iPad killer? I've never seen the point of a tablet anyway.
@wright_is says more about you than you may want revealed.

I can help you with your analytic skills if you like.
@wright_is
"I've never seen the point of a tablet anyway."
Let me help you. It is a device for content consumption, rather than content creation. As a propeller head geek you probably do not understand this, but most people consume content and most people care about the user experience...
@kalodev@... +1 to you sir

this article is comparing two devices that are in two different markets. the ipad is for the consumer market, it's a toy, something people would give to a child because they themselves don't want to entertain the child because they're too busy playing with their iphones.

the surface is an enterprise tool. something architects can use, or corporations can use during presentations.

also, the technology behind the surface is LIGHT technology, which releases a whole array of potential for it that the ipad can never achieve with its capacitive screen. with light technology, the surface can scan ANYTHING from the surface. it can scan pictures or documents or some objects and recreate them right on the screen. you go try doing that on an ipad wink

what a joke of an article
@kidjenius, Actually, it's your screen name that's a joke. You couldn't be more ignorant. iPad use is widespread in enterprise and growing. See this, for example, one of many similar articles (and written when HP was considered a competitor) http://www.crn.com/news/client-devices/231002878/apple-dominating-with-ipad-in-enterprise.htm
You should get out of your parents' basement once in a while.
@cosmicrepairdude

yeah I've seen a bunch of iPad's being used in the enterprise. Well, not 'used' exactly. Checking e-mail while on holiday maybe and shoehorning some sales demo onto a 10-inch screen. This myth that iPads are amazing tools needs to be shot down here and now. They are not right for the job and they never will be.

I don't see anything in kidjenius' reply which is inaccurate. The 2 products are completely different, so why compare them (like you did...)?
Also the article you linked demonstrates not a single actual application of iPad in the enterprise so why did you link it?
Traxxion, wow, I guess I have to bow to your superior research methods. I mean I guess you've seen with your own eyes business folk checking their email while on holiday. Of course, that's why "78 percent of respondents plan to have tablets officially deployed in their businesses by the end of 2013, and 83 percent of those businesses plan to deploy Apple iPads" and "92% of Fortune 500 companies are testing or deploying iPad in their business" (from a different article). Then there's this: http://itr-groupinc.net/resource-center/ipad-usage-in-the-enterprise/ and this: http://www.onlinevideo.net/2011/12/mediaplatform-simplifies-enterprise-video-with-flash/ and this: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/12/apple-ipad-doctors/all/1 and this: http://www.cio.com/article/696869/Enterprise_iPad_App_A_Deal_Closer_
That's just a few of hundreds. Myth?

You said, "The 2 products are completely different, so why compare them (like you did...)?" Really? Where did I do that? I didn't even mention the other product. Learn how to read. Then you might actually learn something instead of just clinging to your ignorant opinions.
@cosmicrepairdude even if the ipad can be used in the enterprise because of apps that the corporations build for it, the two are STILL not comparable. one device is 10 inches, while the other is 40 inch i think? you can't compare them because they are used in different ways. you can't use the ipad to present 3D models that more than 10 people can touch at a time can you? no it can't. but similarly, the 40" screen is obviously not mobile. so the two are NOT COMPARABLE. they do DIFFERENT THINGS for a corporation.

you're defending the ipad's use in enterprise, and I'm defending that you can't compare the two of them because of their different form factors and different technology.
@kidjenius , as I already said to Traxxion, I did not compare them, I did not mention the other product, I only responded to your inaccurate dismissal of the iPad's use in business.
@kidjenius Of course, I could buy a sub-$100 scanner and get exactly the same result. Your point?
0 Votes
+ -
Speaking of jokes...
godsfault 30th Dec
@kidjenius you may want to edit yours from your posting if you want to be taken seriously.

For example: "ipad (sp)...it's a toy" "something...to give to a child" "to entertain (a child) because "they're (parents) to busy playing with their iphones (sp)"

Advice: you don't need to put down an unrelated (your point) product in order to praise a different product.

What is it with the Apple envy that seems to permeate postings like these. Do the writers own competing stock?

Such silliness.
@kalodev@...
+1 to you
-1 to the author for making a such a bad comparison that it will go down in history as one of the worst blog blunders.
The question is not who are they kidding, but who are you kidding with this article. Surface is never meant to compete with tablet. It's a different product, for a completely different market.It's comparing apples to oranges. Now if you want a BS header to attract clicks, that's another story. Apart from that Surface is a brilliant product with a lot of potential.
Not wanting to go into an ad hominem, I have to say this is a really dishonest way to get paid, at least do a minimal fact check to show your readers a some respect. How do you get published here? Are you the owner's nephew?
@willfordcr - Just wait until you read his "review" of the various browsers.
Must have been smoking some wacky tabacky when you wrote this article. What a waste of time.
@icg1032@...
That's an insult to wacky tabacky!!
David,
The title of your blog is very deceiving. You'd have to provide a link to an official Microsoft source that actually says that MS's answer to the iPad is Surface. You haven't, thus this whole piece is a perfect example of a "straw man" argument.
Secondly, as others have pointed out, Surface is not meant for your average consumer. Not at $7600 a pop. In fact MS's answer to the iPad, at least from what I can extrapolate from all that is written, will be Windows 8.
Now you can argue that Surface, hasn't taken off in the business world as MS might've hoped for. That would be a different argument.
0 Votes
+ -
David attacks that which he fears
William Farrel 29th Dec
@MG537
Many times, when I read one of his blogs, I get a sense that when a better technology comes along to replace an Apple product, even in a particular environment, it's an affront to him.

If one Surface tablet replaces 3 or 4 iPads at a building or something, that's 4 less iPads sold. He claims that he doesn't have Apple stock, so not sure why that's so scary to him?

Maybe it upsets him, as it can show that even Steve Jobs didn't think of everything, cause if he did, he would have made the ipad the best product for every situation, or maybe it get's somebody else's foot in the door, which de doesn't like.

Still, I agree with your straw man assesment.
@William Farrel
Maybe he owns MS stock and is tired of how stagnant it is while he saw friends of his who own Apple's do well.

"Maybe it upsets him, as it can show that even Steve Jobs didn't think of everything, cause if he did, he would have made the ipad the best product for every situation"

Haha. Best product for every situation. You reminded why MS is such a failure. Sure come up with a $10k product as your answer to the iPad to have the "best product for every situation".
0 Votes
+ -
@William Farrel
I mean, you've shown nothing in your reply to refute what I said, just more nonsense and temper tantrums.

Nothing in this article indicated that surface was competing with the iPad, yet the author is trying to make a lame connection between the two.

He does that when he see's a non Apple product that can fill a niche better then some current Apple product does. Doesn't matter if it's from MS, Google, Intel, ect.

That's like me saying "David Morgenstern aims to tackle The Wall Street Journal with his Apple Blog? Who is he kidding?"
@William Farrel - You Microsoft shills forget something - you can attach a projector to the iPad and display your demo/slides/project at a 75" size on the wall or sheet or screen. Size of picture is not a problem with iPads. Size and weight for portability is a huge problem for the surface.
I know it is hard for an Appleaholic to understand David but the tech world does not revolve around Apple. In fact there are markets for products that are... GASP... for businesses! Enterprise is not just a ship for Kirk and Picard but is actualy a whole group of business consumers.
@ccrockett@... how this "Surface table" will achieve any real business success.

How many people can interact with a 40" table? I mean, even crowded around and looking over shoulders? And at 8000 bucks?

I can easily imagine ten iPads along, with an upgraded ios, doing most of the functions of Surface cheaper and more conveniently. And then, you get to take the iPad with you: bring along your iPad, interface with the group's iPads, then go back to your job/desk while still staying in iPad contact with your other conferees. It could be called a project and would be linked wirelessly with other members of the project.

All sorts of information could be shared this way, modified, saved, and transmitted as a project. Think of an advertising campaign. Or a cooperative design project.

Expensive stationary units like Surface seem outmoded in most common business practices. I don't see it having much economic success.

BTW, @ccrockett@, calling Apple users "Appleholic(s)" just indicates prejudice on your part. I think any intelligent person wouldn't stoop to mere name calling.
@godsfault Oh so sensitive! Are you going to hand out iPads to customers in a retail environment, of course not! Surface is a great way to create interactive displays and marketing materials. Again, I know it is hard to understand but a 10 inch slate, locked into Apple gated community isn't even remotely similar to a large format, super mutli-touch, multi-person kiosk computer. This article almost as ridicules as your comment Mr. Godsfault.
You really can't compare an ipad to Surface. By any means. Surface is designed with collaboration in mind. 52 points of simultaneous contact at any given time.

Believe it or not with most of our technology advances in the last few years, We'll be seeing more devices like surface and flexible displays than we will ipads in a few years anyways. I'd much rather try to have a collaborative meeting on a surface device than an ipad. The entire experience is with the whole group sitting at the table, not a whole group getting personal to squeeze around a display because 1 or 2 in 8 will have an ipad unless they are company issued.

I like the idea of being able to share and interact with objects, images, documents and media by "sliding/dragging" things across the table and then doing something with it that the entire table can see or just drop the specific items to say maybe, their phone, laying on the surface. How about that surface being able to interact with that ipad, oops, wait... that's not allowed by the mighty blue apple. Apple can run Microsoft's stuff but Microsoft isn't allowed to run apples.. I almost forgot how the truth was....
@Nate_K
A little further up I called David out on his straw man argument. Now I'm doing the same with you.
I guess then, iTunes, Quicktime, Safari do not run under MS's OS?
0 Votes
+ -
@MG537 In the sense that Apple will run Windows while PCs (which Surface is based on) can't run MacOS or iOS because Apple DRMs their OS to their own hardware...

That being said, I'm not entirely sure why that's relevent. You could, in theory, build a Surface like device using a Mac. Given the markup on a Surface device - the price difference in the controller computer wouldn't be that significant... I just don't see the advantage of it.
@TheWerewolf
"You could, in theory, build a Surface like device using a Mac."

You could, if you had been the one to develop the technology. MS has been developing this for years. It's the same story with the Kinect, they bought it, developed it and nobody else has anything like it....
  • Flagged
@Nate_K

"Believe it or not with most of our technology advances in the last few years, We'll be seeing more devices like surface and flexible displays than we will ipads in a few years anyways."

What makes you believe that? You really think consumers and businesses all over the world will be purchasing more $8,000 surface computers than the $499 iPads? What world do you live in? While I agree these are two separate markets and shouldn't be compared, consumers and businesses will continue to choose practicality over novelty every time. The Surface came out around the same time as the iPad and i've yet to see one at any business, while the iPad is everywhere.

"I like the idea of being able to share and interact with objects, images, documents and media by "sliding/dragging" things across the table and then doing something with it that the entire table can see"

Novel, maybe even cool, but practical it is not. I just can't imagine a bunch of workers standing around a tablet doing serious work on a touch screen. No matter how Microsoft try to sell this idea.
@dave95.

"The Surface came out around the same time as the iPad and i've yet to see one at any business, while the iPad is everywhere."

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You haven't seen a SUR40 because they aren't even shipping yet. They will begin shipping in late-January. Surface 1.0 has been implemented by a number of companies. Sheraton Hotels has them in the lobbies of some of their higher-end properties.

"Novel, maybe even cool, but practical it is not. I just can't imagine a bunch of workers standing around a tablet doing serious work on a touch screen. No matter how Microsoft try to sell this idea."

Again, you have no clue. Surface 2.0 is not delivered on a 10" tablet. It's delivered on a 40" HD screen. So, yes a bunch of workers can (and will) stand around this screen and collaborate.

I suggest you learn a little more about Surface 2.0 and the SUR40 before you comment further.
  • Flagged
Surface looked great so I'm not surprised MS bought it, but I am surprised they have not augmented it much in all this time.
@jovike Microsoft did not buy this technology, they built it.
0 Votes
+ -
@jovike
from what i understand they developed it. They may have bought other base technologies to build off of, though.
Based on the previous tech demos I've viewed, this product doesn't even compete with an ipad in the least. They were designed for retail shops and high-end restaurants. The ipad can't produce the same results as a surface computer.
@kris_stapley@...
The fact that you had to explain what it is designed for shows what a failure it is in its designated markets.
0 Votes
+ -
Grasping at straws?
William Farrel 29th Dec
@anono
Obviouslly, the author honestly believes they are identical devices, so it goes without saying that people like you appear to believe they are the exact same thing, too?

Hence why he had to explain it?

BTW - Have you seen the price of the IBM Power 730 Express? $15,000! Who the heck are they kidding? Who's going to buy that when you can get a high end Dell Optiplex for under $1000, an iMac for $2000?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix