My comment had absolutely zero to do with "people from the Netherlands" and does not perpetuate prejudice of any kind.

"Eye candy??? A babe???  Pre-facelift, _maybe_.  Post-op, a huge disaster!  Did you see her pulled up lip???  ***???  She looks like a mangled piece of plastic.  I honestly feel bad, as she's clearly trying to play some feminine beauty card in a highly competitive male-dominated corporate environment.  Sad really that she felt the need to go under the knife."

Really? Who let the Neanderthals in?

*snip*

The poor-man's Steve Jobs maybe.

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/01/george-lucas-disney-money-will-go-toward-education/

So for Microsoft you have to think that whatever profit they make, $55-$100 would have to go to Samsung, whereas, Samsung would have to pay themselves a much lower licensing fee. And it wouldn't surprise me if Samsung sell the Slates at a loss. Because they can afford it, and Samsung makes money back if they sell a lot of units

See how easy it is?

Solution?

I imagine a simple device with these properties:

• compact (credit-card sized; fits in wallet)
• independent (does not, cannot and need not connect to another computer to operate)
• does not depend on user memory
• biometrically authenticated (probably thumbprint)
• driven by one or more of: chemical energy (battery), kinetic energy, solar energy

Oh right. So, what exactly IS that difference? How much does the Surface Pro cost?

To look at it another way, if customer X looks at a tablet.. one from Samsung (assume Windows) and one from Microsoft, Microsoft gets $Y license fee where Y > 0 when the customer buys Samsung, but gets $0 when the customer buys it from Microsoft. So Microsoft loses a licensing fee when someone buys a Microsoft tablet. That's lost revenue. That's not good, is it?

Price of what?

Evidence, please.

*snip*

More accurately, the OEM in question was never in the game to start with.

And what is MS undercutting them with?

is this some kind of new account, haven't seen you around. Anyway, if you worry about Xbox selling at lose. Let me be clear. A) PS1 and PS2 are selling at lose before Xbox is getting into the market. B) There is NO OEM for PS and Xbox.

Yes, monopoly is bad. Like Nintendo insist on selling console at profit because they can cash more from the consumers. Like how Google only provides turn by turn navigation on Android instead of iPhone. Like how Apple charges cloud storage instead of offering it for free like SkyDrive. If they managed to monopolize the market, just see the impact.

Sorry to see HTC bow out but unless you are Apple or someone else trying to sell content then this is a difficult market I guess.

See? The OEM bailing out because MS undercutting them has begun.

Apple buys a lot of components from Samsung. There is literally no reason whatsoever that would cause Samsung to be unable to undercut Apple in prices.

Samsung walks a tight rope. Whether to sell components to Apple to make some profit, or build their own tablets and make a huge amount of profit, or go bust. I would love it if Samsung could make iPads, too. So that the diversity of the ecosystem can be maximized. The strongest would survive, and consumers win.

Please provide evidence that the "OS" will cost $99. As of today, most OEMs pay between $30 and $50 for a copy of Windows, and I don't see that going up anytime soon.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-RT-Windows-8-Licensing-Supply-Chain-OEM,16267.html

As blowdart already mentioned, that's not always true.

Right. Especially since there were/are no OEMs building game consoles based on Microsoft's OS.

Why?

Did you miss the part where the OEMs had the chance to build "beautiful hardware" since, like, forever, and they've ALWAYS squandered it?

If in the future they'll come out with decent offerings, we can thank the Surface kick in the pants for that.

Now that we have the iPad, no tablets can succeed unless they approach its beauty. The OEMs know this now, and they won't make an ugly tablet. But they cannot succeed if Microsoft always undercut them in price.

*snip*

Except, well, iPad. Consumers are not losing there, they're buying in droves.

44 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

I would think that a large OEM, with all the supply chain advantages that are implied, could easily compete against a Microsoft device.

Think about Samsung, for example. They have factories build RAM, displays, etc, that - by your logic - could be almost free to the device building division. Microsoft has to BUY all that stuff from Samsung.

My point is that Microsoft has already said that the Surfaces prices will be "competitive" with the iPad. If you believe that Samsung's cost to build a tablet is comparable to Apple, then how can Samsung sell their tablets at a "competitive" prices as Apple, given that they have to pay Microsoft $99 for the OS.

All this race to the bottom will drive the Samsungs out of the market, leaving only Microsoft as the monopoly hardware maker. In a monopoly, consumers lose.

55 minutes ago, wkempf wrote

@RobGreenly: You heard wrong. $80-100 is the price for Windows AND Office. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-RT-Windows-8-Licensing-Supply-Chain-OEM,16267.html

Regardless, Microsoft would be putting themselves in a precarious position legally if they undercut OEMs in the way you suggest... even if it made sense to do it, which I don't believe it does. Undercutting the OEMs would mean less profit for Microsoft. It's a complicated calculation, and Microsoft does have to be careful here, but I honestly don't see any way that them making hardware means there's no room for OEMs. There is the chance OEMs would opt for an alternative (like Android) that would offer them a larger profit margin, but that's just more reason why it's not a good idea for Microsoft to give the OS away for free to customers of their hardware.

OK. Last time I checked, $99 is $80-$100. But Microsoft undercut the OEMs all the time with Xbox 1 and Xbox 360, selling at a loss to gain popularity. I don't see any legal issues in that. But I think that either MS should stay out of the hardware business, or pay the OEMs to build Microsoft hardware. That would give the OEMs incentives to build beautiful hardware.

20 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

If Apple allowed OSX to be installed on non-Apple hardware, you'd have dozens of OEMs producing OSX-based machines to compete against Apple. As long as Microsoft allows you to sell hardware with Windows installed on it by merely paying a licensing fee, you're going to have hardware companies selling Windows-based hardware regardless of what Microsoft does.

I've heard that Microsoft charges $99 to the OEMs for Windows 8, and being closely tied, Microsoft can charge themselves a lot less. So, the OEMs can never compete with Microsoft on price irregardless how high they raise the price.

I hope MS learns from Apple. If you want an iOS device, you have to buy it from Apple. A monopoly can only drive up the price. Consumers lose.