backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by althaz.. on Apr 18 at 11:02 PM

Windows 8 touchscreen device prices set to plummet

If you head up to the store today to purchase a Windows 8 device with a touchscreen, such as a notebook or tablet, you will likely pay at least $400. The high price tag is one of the reasons why Windows 8 hasn't performed as well on the market as Microsoft hoped. However, Intel CEO Paul Otellini says that prices of these devices are set to get much cheaper.

Otellini says that touch screen devices running Windows 8 and Intel's new Bay Trail processors will see their prices cut in half. Devices running these chips are expected to sink to price points that will allow for more penetration into the lower end tablet market with products available at around $200.

Bay Trail is a complete redesign of Intel's Atom microarchitecture. Intel expects the new processors to bring Atom closer to the performance of mainstream Intel processors.

"Bay Trail is going to be a great product in that segment of the market and enable stunning performance relative to what the competition can bring," said Stacy Smith, Intel chief financial officer.

Intel says that its new chip will allow device manufacturers to design tablets and notebooks as thin as 8 mm, or 0.3-inches. Bay Trail is also said to be the most powerful Atom processor so far and promises all day battery life and weeks on standby.

Source: CNET



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

About freakin time
By Mint on 4/17/2013 10:41:40 AM , Rating: 4
I always saw tablets as basically a netbook with a better screen (which couldn't cost much given the ARM tablet BOM) but without the cost or assembly complications of keyboard/trackpad/hinge. So why were netbooks selling for $250 while Atom tablets with similar innards cost $500? A 64GB SSD should have similar cost to a 250GB HDD, and 128GB options should only add $50 at most.

It made no sense for ARM tablets to be so much cheaper. Somebody in the supply chain was trying to milk profits out of Win8 tablets, whether it was Intel by restricting Clovertrail supply or OEMs through collusion.

Fear of uncompetitiveness with Clovertrail is, IMO, the sole reason Microsoft made RT. It was a backup plan and a threat to make sure Intel didn't slack off with Atom, now or in the future.




RE: About freakin time
By mjv.theory on 4/17/13, Rating: -1
RE: About freakin time
By Greyf0x on 4/17/2013 12:18:14 PM , Rating: 5
People still do the "M$" thing? I didn't know we were still in 1990...


RE: About freakin time
By kmmatney on 4/17/13, Rating: 0
RE: About freakin time
By Mitch101 on 4/17/2013 5:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
Chromebooks are Lame - see what I did there.

First real-world usage figures suggest Chromebooks are struggling
http://www.zdnet.com/first-real-world-usage-figure...

Put another way, that figure suggests that in nearly two years on the market, all of those Chromebooks have achieved a smaller percentage of usage than Windows RT earned as of January 2013


RE: About freakin time
By sprockkets on 4/17/13, Rating: 0
RE: About freakin time
By zephyrprime on 4/17/2013 2:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft set the prices it did to match the iPad. Basically, they want to copy Apple which is in truth a luxury brand like (ala Mercedes or Gucci) so they produced a similar product that was also highly priced since luxury brands are ALWAYS high priced. It's questionable whether or not the surface has even turned a profit given its low sales.


RE: About freakin time
By Mint on 4/17/2013 7:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's nonsense. You think MS was charging $200 for the OS? LOL

I'm not talking about Surface, genius. I'm talking about Acer, Asus, etc. They sold new Win7 netbooks for $250, Android tablets for $200 or less, but Clovertrail tablets had a huge price premium for no reason.


RE: About freakin time
By Visual on 4/18/2013 4:45:43 AM , Rating: 2
^^ that.

TBH, some of the price points may be justified. I mean the few products that happen to have a Wacom digitizer or not a terrible screen resolution. Though I still wouldn't buy them with the crap GPU they have.

On the other hand, Windows RT products go beyond crazy. Even more overpriced than Atom-based ones, despite the crappier CPU, and none of them has either a decent resolution or active digitizer. It almost feels like their only reason for existing is to fool us that the Atom based versions are not as overpriced as they actually are.


RE: About freakin time
By karimtemple on 4/17/2013 11:16:28 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty much.


RE: About freakin time
By mjv.theory on 4/17/13, Rating: -1
RE: About freakin time
By mjv.theory on 4/17/2013 11:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, browser deja vu!


RE: About freakin time
By Da W on 4/17/2013 2:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
200$ ARM tablet are basicly 2 years old Socs with a cheap screen in a 7'' format. They do compete with netbooks. Most Clovertail tablets i saw had higher specs than nexus 7 or kindle Fire.


Interesting
By Ammohunt on 4/17/2013 11:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
The atom systems I have owned running Linux for light server duty have been underwhelming. I would never consider running any version of Windows on them.




RE: Interesting
By karimtemple on 4/17/2013 11:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
Chances are the hardware being discussed here is far beyond the performance of the Atom parts you're running.


RE: Interesting
By kmmatney on 4/17/2013 12:45:00 PM , Rating: 3
They should rename the processor. The word "Atom" is already associated with "slow" for me...


RE: Interesting
By geekman1024 on 4/17/2013 10:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest they rename it to Mota, to imply that this is the complete reverse of Atom.


RE: Interesting
By Motoman on 4/18/2013 6:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
No way hoser. Mota is a planet in Phantasy Star. I won't have it thought of in any other manner.


RE: Interesting
By geekman1024 on 4/18/2013 9:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
That should be Motavia.


RE: Interesting
By Justin Time on 4/17/2013 6:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
Bay-Trail is a complete redesign, and really should be renamed.

22nm SOC, Quad-Core 2.7GHz (Burst), 8GB RAM, DX11, 2500x1600 display support, HW ecode/acceleration, USB-3.

This should perform well on processing specs alone (people are already claiming +70% on cedar-trail) which should definitely allow it to compete with AMD and ARM... the only question being, how well they manage the power demand, which is typically Intel's achilles.


RE: Interesting
By Ammohunt on 4/17/2013 7:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
.....which should definitely allow it to compete with AMD and ARM


I will believe it when I see it.


RE: Interesting
By Mint on 4/17/2013 7:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
Anand's tests show that Clovertrail is already competitive for CPU power and performance. It just has a weaker GPU right now.


wat
By lagomorpha on 4/17/2013 10:19:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
to bring Atom closer and performance the mainstream Intel processors.


Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?




RE: wat
By karimtemple on 4/17/2013 10:20:33 AM , Rating: 2
lol


RE: wat
By mjv.theory on 4/17/2013 10:40:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bay Trail is also said to be the most powerful Atom processor so far and promises all day battery life and weeks on standby.

In addition to the curious performance, it's so powerful that the battery lasts all day.


RE: wat
By Mitch101 on 4/17/2013 11:14:01 AM , Rating: 2
Probably depends on what your doing like surfing the web. Plus it probably takes into consideration they keyboard also has a battery pack within it.

My only concern is graphics and AMD has a really good chip for tablets that would do quite well but the price has to be right.

In all if what they are saying is true on the price then Windows RT seems dead and the Pro for $200.00 is where the game is.


Impossible with the M$ tax
By DT_Reader on 4/17/2013 12:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
$200? Let's see, retail markup is usually 100%, so the cost to Best Buy is $100 for a $200 item. Which means that after paying Microsoft $150 for the Windows 8 license Intel is going to lose $50/unit just to gain market share over ARM? I don't think so.




RE: Impossible with the M$ tax
By DT_Reader on 4/17/2013 12:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
Edit: That assumes zero hardware cost on Intel's part, so they're more likely losing $250/unit.


RE: Impossible with the M$ tax
By thesavvymage on 4/17/2013 2:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
are you kidding? Retail mark-up is nowhere near 100%. Especially for highly competitive electronics like this. Most stores sell computers very close to, or even for a loss. they hope to regain money selling you the accidental damage insurance. I worked at office depot, and we would often lose 20-30$ on laptops that were selling for $600.

Laptops and tablets, especially when newer, are sold at MOST a 25% margin.


RE: Impossible with the M$ tax
By Justin Time on 4/18/2013 2:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
Retail markup in the PC market is all too often 10% or less.

OEMs are not going to be paying $150 for Windows.

I had some sales experience with Windows Netbooks, and think that this is entirely possible.


RE: Impossible with the M$ tax
By althaz on 4/18/2013 11:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
lol @ "Retail markup is usually 100%".

Retail markup (for electronics) very rarely exceeds 15% (in electronic retail 15% is "good" margin and 20% is "excellent"). MUCH more common is single-digit margins. The real money in retail comes from two things: volume and add-ons (accessories, extended warranties, etc).

If you've ever bought a $2000 TV and a $50 HDMI cable (like a noob), the retailer you bought it from probably made more money from the cable than the TV, and I don't mean as a percentage.


Yay!
By Wolfpup on 4/17/2013 9:42:27 AM , Rating: 5
Not really interested in Windows RT, but I'd kinda like to try a Windows 8 tablet...

Ideally though I'd like something with built in GPS (and then TomTom software to use it...) to really match my iPad's functionality.




RE: Yay!
By geekman1024 on 4/17/2013 10:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Um, r you lost, bro?


$200 sounds like the price for the processor
By markwrob on 4/17/2013 11:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one that thinks $200 for a complete atom-powered device (tablet, notebook or heck even phone) is extremely low? It would leave no profit at all for the OEM or ODM trying to put it together. I think I hear a lot of rueful chuckles coming from the Asian manufacturing centers.




By ilt24 on 4/17/2013 1:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
Intel's current Clovertrail Atom chip for Tablets and Phones, according to some product teardown reports I have, go for between $20 and $30.


By Mint on 4/17/2013 7:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
If Atom netbooks reached $250 over a year ago, why couldn't they hit $200 today with similar specs in the simpler tablet form factor?


It's not up to Intel.
By 91TTZ on 4/17/2013 1:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
The selling price isn't set by Intel. The high selling price isn't because of the hardware. The high selling price is because all these manufacturers are looking to sell highly profitable devices so they're jacking up the price. People aren't falling for it.




RE: It's not up to Intel.
By karimtemple on 4/17/2013 3:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yyyyyep!!


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki