Intel CEO: Windows 8 Touch Devices To Drop to $200

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Watch how fast people become fans of Windows 8 when devices hit the $200 mark. Too bad the Surface Pro wasn't $200. ;)

The price of Windows 8 touch devices, including laptops, will sink to price points that penetrate inexpensive tablet territory. "If you look at touch-enabled Intel-based notebooks that are ultrathin using [Bay Trail] processors. Those prices are going to be down to as low as $200," said Intel CEO Paul Otellini.
Click to expand...
 
Windows RT is a limited OS and is going to die if the x86 Windows 8 becomes cheaper.
 
Trimlock said:
Holy $200? AMD is going to have a rough time
Click to expand...

Every company even remotely involved with these devices will be begging for butt lube..........unless Microsoft is paying through another orifice to subsidize all of this.

There goes Balmer's bonus.
 
punisher said:
Every company even remotely involved with these devices will be begging for butt lube..........unless Microsoft is paying through another orifice to subsidize all of this.

There goes Balmer's bonus.
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly how they're going to get to $200. The tablets/touch devices are going to be cost subsidized by Microsoft... and therefore bootlocked to Win8 only.
 
Didn't Intel say that ultrabooks are going to change the landscape?
Great another shity Netbook trend led by no other but a chip maker..

I think the biggest cost will be batteries and touchscreens.
 
punisher said:
Every company even remotely involved with these devices will be begging for butt lube..........unless Microsoft is paying through another orifice to subsidize all of this.

There goes Balmer's bonus.
Click to expand...

Man MS is not gone make a penny. They charge 80 bucks for oem windows.

That leaves 120 dollars for hardware/distribution and profit..

Yeah that's about as likely as.....
 
techrat said:
I think that's exactly how they're going to get to $200. The tablets/touch devices are going to be cost subsidized by Microsoft... and therefore bootlocked to Win8 only.
Click to expand...

Bay Trail -T, the tablet version, is specially designed to only run Windows 8, like Clover Trail. Microsoft won't subsidize the cost but the licenses will be much cheaper for devices in this range.
 
Wrench00 said:
Man MS is not gone make a penny. They charge 80 bucks for oem windows.

That leaves 120 dollars for hardware/distribution and profit..

Yeah that's about as likely as.....
Click to expand...

$80 for major OEM Windows x86? Do you really think that's what OEMs were paying for Windows licenses for netbooks or cheap laptops?
 
Yea I don't know how its possible but MS will take over the tablet space at this price point.
 
heatlesssun said:
$200 for a tablet that can natively run x86 software with good performance? No, not too late for that because it doesn't even exist right now.
Click to expand...
Look around you. Many people have already shifted their computing habits to tablet only - I'd say iOS mainly. They are not going to shift back unless they are given a reason to.
 
ComputerBox34 said:
Look around you. Many people have already shifted their computing habits to tablet only - I'd say iOS mainly. They are not going to shift back unless they are given a reason to.
Click to expand...

I doubt that everyone who will ever buy a tablet has bought one. x86 still does a lot that can't be done on ARM tablets and $200 is basically an impulse buy and significantly cheaper than any current iPad.
 
I'd say that depends on YOU intel. How much are you going to charge for those chipsets? Because you overcharged for those ultrabook chipsets, a big reason why they didn't go much of anywhere.

Another part depends on MS and how much they want to soak people for. If they are smart, they will think about using their app store for future income and make the actual win 8 tablet license less expensive.
 
pxc said:
related: Intel says quarterly profits fell 25 percent as PC industry reels

"that tablet thing, we can do it too. we must do it. seriously!!!!"
Click to expand...

In some ways Windows 8 might be more important to Intel than Microsoft. If there's going to be a successful x86 tablet OS it's probably going to be Windows. Of course there's Android, Ubuntu, etc. but I think Android's destiny for the foreseeable future is solidly in the ARM world and I doubt that Ubuntu and other Linux distros can do more than Microsoft to attract people to x86 tablets.
 
heatlesssun said:
I doubt that everyone who will ever buy a tablet has bought one. x86 still does a lot that can't be done on ARM tablets and $200 is basically an impulse buy and significantly cheaper than any current iPad.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see x86 tablets hit $200. This would fall in line with performance of current platforms including their processors, amount of storage, memory, and resolution. Atom systems really _should_ be at this price, but I'm not certain Intel's CEO is being realistic.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I'd like to see x86 tablets hit $200. This would fall in line with performance of current platforms including their processors, amount of storage, memory, and resolution. Atom systems really _should_ be at this price, but I'm not certain Intel's CEO is being realistic.
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason why this can't happen with 7" devices. Windows 8.1 is supposed to support devices this size and I'm pretty sure Microsoft will be price competitive with licensing with devices this size, they really don't have much of a choice. And Intel will have to price competitive with ARM SoCs as well.

Yes the margins will be thinner but Microsoft and Intel can't just sit back and see fewer and fewer PCs selling each quarter. Competition is a bitch.
 
This has been said time and time again by critics-- these devices need to come down in price AND need comparable features to its competitors. The same goes for Windows 8 notebooks and desktop PCs. If Microsoft expects to win more customers there, notebooks need better screens and touchscreen-capability in the $300 to $500 range to compete against the tablets. The same with desktop PCs-- touchscreen capability at the entry-level and mid-range $300 to $500 range, and not stick to the higher-priced all-in-one desktop computers at $800 to $1000-plus.
 
heatlesssun said:
I don't see any reason why this can't happen with 7" devices. Windows 8.1 is supposed to support devices this size and I'm pretty sure Microsoft will be price competitive with licensing with devices this size, they really don't have much of a choice. And Intel will have to price competitive with ARM SoCs as well.

Yes the margins will be thinner but Microsoft and Intel can't just sit back and see fewer and fewer PCs selling each quarter. Competition is a bitch.
Click to expand...

There are still a lot of fundamental component requirements that need to be met even with around 3-4 fewer diagonal inches of screen real estate. I'm just doubtful that with economic inflation and basic material costs there's really a way to shed 50% off the current prices. I'd be thrilled if it happened, but I'm suspicious that it's not possible.

It does need to happen though. Lower price points are an absolute must. I just don't have any idea where they can realistically cut enough corners.
 
heatlesssun said:
I doubt that everyone who will ever buy a tablet has bought one. x86 still does a lot that can't be done on ARM tablets and $200 is basically an impulse buy and significantly cheaper than any current iPad.
Click to expand...

Based on Apple's slowing sales with the iPad and iPhone, I'd say that most markets in "modernized" countries are pretty close to saturated.

The smartphone and tablet "revolution" was a race, just like the original "revolution" of PC's and laptops. Now it's even worse because one generation of tablet to another is becoming more and more incremental which means people aren't upgrading as fast. Most people are satisfied with what they have now since Apple's products just "work." People don't need x86 devices anymore - ARM is just fine for browsing facebook and using a standard internet browser. Now that pretty much every printer supports Apple AirPrint, I'd say 90%+ of users can do just fine without using a laptop for their everyday computing.

Microsoft lost this round. They should have been breaking into this market years ago yet they are still barely past the starting line. Further pissing off the mass desktop community with the removal of the start button doesn't quite help their predicament either.

No - I'd say Microsoft has shot themselves in the gut this time around. Whether or not they actually bleed out is yet to be seen. The way that you view the market and based on how you defend Microsoft at almost every turn pretty much mimics the management problems that MS has today. I hope they can save themselves.
 
Arm Chair Marketers aside, I can see why intel wanted to charge so much for their ULV's, while having pretty significant performance with very little power pull. I still think they could of lowered the PPU.
 
ComputerBox34 said:
Based on Apple's slowing sales with the iPad and iPhone, I'd say that most markets in "modernized" countries are pretty close to saturated.

The smartphone and tablet "revolution" was a race, just like the original "revolution" of PC's and laptops. Now it's even worse because one generation of tablet to another is becoming more and more incremental which means people aren't upgrading as fast. Most people are satisfied with what they have now since Apple's products just "work." People don't need x86 devices anymore - ARM is just fine for browsing facebook and using a standard internet browser. Now that pretty much every printer supports Apple AirPrint, I'd say 90%+ of users can do just fine without using a laptop for their everyday computing.

Microsoft lost this round. They should have been breaking into this market years ago yet they are still barely past the starting line. Further pissing off the mass desktop community with the removal of the start button doesn't quite help their predicament either.

No - I'd say Microsoft has shot themselves in the gut this time around. Whether or not they actually bleed out is yet to be seen. The way that you view the market and based on how you defend Microsoft at almost every turn pretty much mimics the management problems that MS has today. I hope they can save themselves.
Click to expand...


Apples slowed sales are a direct result of android offerings. As with the rest of your post it is incorrect as well.
 
ComputerBox34 said:
Based on Apple's slowing sales with the iPad and iPhone, I'd say that most markets in "modernized" countries are pretty close to saturated.

The smartphone and tablet "revolution" was a race, just like the original "revolution" of PC's and laptops. Now it's even worse because one generation of tablet to another is becoming more and more incremental which means people aren't upgrading as fast. Most people are satisfied with what they have now since Apple's products just "work." People don't need x86 devices anymore - ARM is just fine for browsing facebook and using a standard internet browser. Now that pretty much every printer supports Apple AirPrint, I'd say 90%+ of users can do just fine without using a laptop for their everyday computing.
Click to expand...

Apple has sold about 120 million iPads in three years, that doesn't seem to me at all to be saturated especially as tablet sales are projected to go much higher in the coming years. And if you can give people the option to run x86 for no more than an ARM device, yes, plenty people will take that option, especially businesses. There's still an enormous library of Windows desktop apps that plenty of people still want to run.

ComputerBox34 said:
Microsoft lost this round. They should have been breaking into this market years ago yet they are still barely past the starting line. Further pissing off the mass desktop community with the removal of the start button doesn't quite help their predicament either.

No - I'd say Microsoft has shot themselves in the gut this time around. Whether or not they actually bleed out is yet to be seen. The way that you view the market and based on how you defend Microsoft at almost every turn pretty much mimics the management problems that MS has today. I hope they can save themselves.
Click to expand...

Microsoft has been late to entry in other markets and in time found a way to compete. If Microsoft isn't a dominate player in tablets, that doesn't mean they should just quit, otherwise Apple should have stopped selling Macs long ago. I think a $200 x86 tablet has potential and to discount it before it even exists would probably not be a wise thing to do if you're Apple or Google.
 
Wrench00 said:
Man MS is not gone make a penny. They charge 80 bucks for oem windows.

That leaves 120 dollars for hardware/distribution and profit..

Yeah that's about as likely as.....
Click to expand...

and do you actually think it costs MS $80 oer OEM... :rolleyes: they can print them for free if they want..

They are going to do what consoles do, sell the hardware cheap to get market penetration and hope to make money off their stores.
 
MrGuvernment said:
and do you actually think it costs MS $80 oer OEM... :rolleyes: they can print them for free if they want..

They are going to do what consoles do, sell the hardware cheap to get market penetration and hope to make money off their stores.
Click to expand...

This pretty much is their strategy.

But, what kind of hardware are we looking at for a $200 x86 tablet?

Core i3 and i5 ULVs start at $200-ish for tray prices. I would not be surprised Atom starts at the $80 to $100 range. Touchscreen LCDs aren't cheap either. Everything else is affordable.

So, either Microsoft or the OEMs are going to eat the extra costs or pitching in money to make this work.

And, for Microsoft to make extra money to offset the costs by using their Windows Store, they need more quality apps there, and more developers. However, their strong arming of developers and their Xbox Live policies and their development agreements and arrangements that have scared off a lot of developers NEED TO CHANGE ASAP! They can't let it become the Windows 8 Phone App Store which is sorely behind Android and iOS app stores.
 
octoberasian said:
Core i3 and i5 ULVs start at $200-ish for tray prices. I would not be surprised Atom starts at the $80 to $100 range. Touchscreen LCDs aren't cheap either. Everything else is affordable.
Click to expand...

Bay Trail-T, the tablet <3W version of 22nm OOO Atom. Intel is making some pretty steep promises on the performance of this thing, twice the overall performance of Clover Trail Atoms, which if the GPU is good enough could be powerful enough to run PC games at lower settings and light Photoshop jobs. I make no claims, just what Intel is saying. If these kinds of things can be done with cheap tablets hooked up to docks or external monitors, yeah, there's potential there.

And Atom SoCs don't come anywhere near $80 to $100. The price isn't disclosed publicly by Intel but they claim its very much in line with ARM SoCs.
 
heatlesssun said:
In some ways Windows 8 might be more important to Intel than Microsoft. If there's going to be a successful x86 tablet OS it's probably going to be Windows. Of course there's Android, Ubuntu, etc. but I think Android's destiny for the foreseeable future is solidly in the ARM world and I doubt that Ubuntu and other Linux distros can do more than Microsoft to attract people to x86 tablets.
Click to expand...

Without Microsoft/Windows, Intel would dry up in a hurry.
This is not good, I certainly hope Microsoft and Intel can start to turn up profits with their tablets.

While I may like Linux over Windows, I do know which one pays the bills for these companies.
If only Microsoft had changed the GUI on desktops and laptops without touch screens!!
 
So now the head of Intel is basically saying "hey average consumer, don't buy anything until prices hit $200 or you're overpaying". That just seems like an incredibly stupid marketing move. Like somebody mentioned earlier - did they learn nothing from netbooks?

Sure, everybody *here* knows it'll all be junk at that price point and we're smart enough to spend more to get something sooner that's actually usable.

The technical illiterates of the world, however, will hold off buying anything, obsessively clutching their wallets and moaning about how overpriced everything is, until Best Buy finally starts dumping crappy low-end product at the $200 price point. Those folks will then fall all over themselves snatching up a $200 lap warmer, after which they'll rant incessantly about how they got ripped off or how all Windows machines suck, or whatever idiotic nonsense typically comes gurgling out of their pie holes.

Well played, Intel. Well played.
 
I feel much better about buying a $200 x86 tablet.
I don't care if it's junk, as long as it has expandability and a responsive touch screen.

That's how it should have been in the first place.

Years ago, we had the standard $200 netbook. Years later, progress should have been made so that a $200 x86 tablet would be the standard. But their greedy asses are charging $500 for an Atom based tablet.
 
More realistically the price is going to be $350 for a 7" tablet. I doubt any OEM will do $200 for a x86 and have it be anywhere decent. But $350 for a x86 tablet will probably sell loads though.
 
heatlesssun said:
And Atom SoCs don't come anywhere near $80 to $100. The price isn't disclosed publicly by Intel but they claim its very much in line with ARM SoCs.
Click to expand...

If doing some searching on Google, most ARM SoCs seem to be around the $20 to $50 range per unit if purchased in bulk depending on manufacturer and features.

If Intel can keep the next Bay Trail Atom within that price range and OEMs literally stop over-charging on the other parts or the tablet as a whole, it may help Microsoft sell more Windows 8 tablets. A $479 Windows 8, non RT, Atom tablet is still too much given that you can get a good Android tablet for $100 less. I'm going to ignore Apple for now, but these manufacturers have to stop putting a price premium on these tablets.

And, a $699 to $899 Windows 8 tablet is not going to sell well or win customers over a $200 to $400 Android tablet that may do maybe 80% of the same functionality-- media streaming, email, web browsing, watching videos, listening to music, and photo viewing. You're practically paying for the Intel Core i3/i5 processor and the extra 20% functionality to install Windows desktop programs. That 20% may be more comfortable to do in a $300 to $500 notebook with a keyboard and trackpad, just with less portability and no touchscreen.

So, it's still being between a rock and a hard place-- either the OEMs charge too much or comparable products offer similar features at lower prices.
 
dr.kevin said:
I feel much better about buying a $200 x86 tablet.
I don't care if it's junk, as long as it has expandability and a responsive touch screen.

That's how it should have been in the first place.

Years ago, we had the standard $200 netbook. Years later, progress should have been made so that a $200 x86 tablet would be the standard. But their greedy asses are charging $500 for an Atom based tablet.
Click to expand...

I don't think the prices for Atom tablets are as quite as out of whack as you're saying. These are new devices and new and cheap don't generally go hand in hand. Generally for $500 to $600 range now you're getting devices with 2GB of RAM, 64 GB of storage with USB ports, SD slots and HDMI out. And some of these devices have pen digitizers as well. Right now for $600 you can get the HP Envy x2 with these specs plus a keyboard dock with battery and in a 3.2 lbs package have an x86 device with 14 hours of battery life. Not the fastest thing in the world and the screen is a little low res for a tablet, though not actually bad for a ultrabook that size.

I seriously doubt that you're going to see an 11.6" device with a battery dock and pen for $200 dollars anytime soon. A device like the x2 with a full HD screen in the same size with all of the same features with a Bay Trail for $400 to 500 would be pretty reasonable.
 
octoberasian said:
And, a $699 to $899 Windows 8 tablet is not going to sell well or win customers over a $200 to $400 Android tablet that may do maybe 80% of the same functionality-- media streaming, email, web browsing, watching videos, listening to music, and photo viewing. You're practically paying for the Intel Core i3/i5 processor and the extra 20% functionality to install Windows desktop programs. That 20% may be more comfortable to do in a $300 to $500 notebook with a keyboard and trackpad, just with less portability and no touchscreen.

So, it's still being between a rock and a hard place-- either the OEMs charge too much or comparable products offer similar features at lower prices.
Click to expand...

Even now between $700 and $900 you can get a Windows 8 hybrid which is a laptop and a tablet. A $200 Android tablet is going to be a 7" media consumption device.
 
A 7" tablet with x86 and Windows 8.1.
for $199?

I'm not calling the PC market dead...but...umm.

That will surely blow out a kneecap or two. All these
tablet makers getting ready to push $500-600 tablets
are gonna be raped at the starting line if that comes true.

There's simply no market when you have that wide of a
spread. We're too addicted to cheap, quality doesn't matter
anymore, the only people that bitch about quality are the people
that are beyond warranties and want shit for free anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top