Only a foolish business user would willingly throw $700 for a device that lacks a proper keyboard, mouse or network card interface to the company's active directory managed network. Business users need Word, Excel and Outlook; they need to be able to run legacy apps developed years ago, that do not run properly if at all, on Windows 8 and above.

Unless business users can load Windows 7 on the Surface Pro 3, the device will lose another billion bucks for the beast from Redmond. No point having powerful hardware when the software sucks.

most of us artists prefer to actually see our lines appear where we are drawing them

Connect a touchscreen monitor with a pen to a normal desktop - problem solved.

Do you mean to say Microsoft is creating an entire range of device just to cater to the fetish of artists drawing and doodling? I wish them all the best of luck.

And smaller phones and desktop computer can't do things a 12" tablet can.

Can you please name a single thing or task that can only be done on a 12" tablet; and not on a phone or desktop? For your information, digitisers, pens and styluses are supported on laptops and desktops too.

they're going after the laptop market.... This will sell ridiculously well in the enterprise.

The laptop is a very long-lived well-researched device that has tons of applications available on that form factor. Running MS Office on a tablet device will have users tearing their hair out and getting aspirin tablets to rid their headaches.

Ah, you're one of those people with only half a brain.

Atleast I allegedly have half a brain. You are confusing creativity and art with a tablet form factor and stylus. Laptops and desktops support styluses, digitisers, pens etc. and have much more capable content creation software than those available on the tablet form factor.

Microsoft is saying they want to make a tablet that is good for content creation. That's why it's bigger. That's why it comes with a pen.

In my view, content creation is best done with keyboard, mouse and a desktop / laptop. What sort of content can be created with a stylus on a tablet? That's neither the best tools nor the most cost effective.

Cadillacs and Toyotas are both good at transporting people from one place to another. A 12" tablet cannot do most things possible on a smaller phone or a larger desktop.

I'll bet they didn't show this 12" screen running any of the legacy windows apps

What do people generally buy tablets for? In my view tablets are best for consuming content, with about 5% input done through keyboard. Except for watching movies, or for super exotic porn watching, 12" is a horrible form factor.

About half the Android tablets I've seen are used for dual purposes - making phone calls, as well as viewing mails, videos, Whatsapp and what not. A 12" tablet for making calls would make as much sense as navigating a 17" screen using touch or keyboard, but no mouse.

Content creation is best done on a laptop or ideally, on a desktop. So a 12" portable device is neither good for consuming content, making phone calls or creating content. So who is the target user for the Surface Pro 3?

I think it's not funny any more. Windows 8 and later do not seem to be operating systems at all, that description seems to have stopped with XP. An OS manages the hardware resources and provides an operating environment for application software to run.

Windows 8 has made it very cumbersome to use the hardware, focusing largely on touch, which is wasted on a desktop. And many legacy application software simply refuse to run on Windows 8 or later. Even simple web based applications are a pain to navigate and use in Windows 8.

So China or elsewhere, people need a decent desktop operating system, and Microsoft seems to have exited that business.

Microsoft seems a totally confused company at the moment. I bet more than 50% of all tablets are 7" screen size or less. The reason the iPad at about 10" is good is bcos of touch based apps for that platform.

12" is way too big for a tablet and $700 is about 3 times the ideal price point. This device will get hammered by Android tablets by the low-price customers; and anybody who can afford $700 for a tablet would close their eyes and buy the iPad which has 100 times more useful touch based apps than the Surface Pro.

The desktop OS is best navigated with a keyboard in Microsoft's opinion. The best Surface Pro apps are those designed for the desktop, such as Excel and Word.

Looks like a very confused company determined to throw another $1bn in a vain effort to get 2% marketshare in tablets. Gates or Ballmer or Nadella, nobody seems to have any clue about desktops, tablets or smartphones.

If the President is in control of the NSA, doesn't it follow that the NSA did this with full Presidential approval in the first place?

Let's not also forget two other particularly powerful points made in the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) essay:

• "We understand that Mozilla is afraid of losing users. Cory Doctorow points out that they have produced no evidence to substantiate this fear or made any effort to study the situation."
• "More importantly, popularity is not an end in itself. This is especially true for the Mozilla Foundation, a nonprofit with an ethical mission. In the past, Mozilla has distinguished itself and achieved success by protecting the freedom of its users and explaining the importance of that freedom: including publishing Firefox's source code, allowing others to make modifications to it, and sticking to Web standards in the face of attempts to impose proprietary extensions."

Brad Kuhn builds on these points in his essay discussing Mozilla's announcement: "Theoretically speaking, though, the Mozilla Foundation is supposed to be a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity which told the IRS its charitable purpose was: to "keep the Internet a universal platform that is accessible by anyone from anywhere, using any computer, and ... develop open-source Internet applications". Baker fails to explain how switching Firefox to include proprietary software fits that mission. In fact, with a bit of revisionist history, she says that open source was merely an "approach" that Mozilla Foundation was using, not their mission."

Speaking of how people criticize the FSF without reading what they say, the FSF is not an "open source advocate" despite /.'s insistence to the contrary such as is stated in this story's headline. The FSF and the free software movement predate the developmental methodology known as open source, and the FSF fights for values the open source movement sets out to deny, namely software freedom. The FSF has published more than one essay on this topic (1, 2) and RMS includes a clear and cogent explanation of this point in virtually every talk you'll hear him give. Archives of these talks are readily available online in formats that favor free software. Mozilla's choice here is another example of reaching radically different conclusions given different philosophies: Mozilla's open source choice versus a free software activist's choice to reject DRM for many valid reasons the FSF points out.

With the number of times /. posters point out how RMS arrived at some conclusion well before so many other people, and wrote something illustrating the point and his rationale, I would hope /. posters would recall that.

More DRM isn't going to play out well for the public as it has already failed for those who enjoy leveraging their fair-use rights, reading/viewing something in another way, and more. RMS's ethics-backed rationale against DRM and nonfree software (as opposed to a developmental methodology that accepts practical convenience at the cost of our civil liberties) is simply invaluable. Snowden's revelations bring RMS's long-held objections to nonfree software into sharp focus all the more.

Addressing both your comment and the grandparent comment: this distinction of allowing non-free software is part of what distinguishes the older free software movement from the younger open source movement. RMS has been talking and writing about this critical distinction for years.

Consider the following from "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software":

The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

In other words, open source won't endorse software freedom for its own sake. That movement was designed to never raise the issue of software freedom in order to promote a developmental methodology thought to lead to more reliable, more powerful programs. That methodology is fine as far as it goes (everyone likes powerful robust programs) but as we're seeing with the Snowden revelations, that methodology doesn't go far enough. RMS realized this very early on and has been providing ethical counterarguments since the open source movement began (older essay, newer essay).

This difference explains what we're seeing in the very different approaches taken in Linus Torvalds' fork of the Linux kernel versus the GNU Linux-libre fork of the Linux kernel. Linux-libre's distinction is that this fork removes the blobs that come with the Torvalds fork of the Linux kernel. Torvalds includes nonfree code meant to make the kernel run on more hardware which places a high value on convenience at the cost of software freedom. Linux-libre values software freedom instead. As a result, Linux-libre doesn't run on as much hardware and might not take advantage of everything modern hardware can do, but one gains a system they are allowed to fully inspect, share, and modify—software freedom. Linux-libre lets users make sure the software does only what that user wants that program to do. RMS, as recently as his recent responses to /. questions, encouraged readers to reverse engineer hardware in order to fully document hardware ("The parts of Linux we need to replace are the nonfree parts, the "binary blobs". [...] The main work necessary to replace the blobs is reverse engineering to determine the specs of the peripherals those blobs are used in. That's a tremendously important job -- please join in if you can."). This work leads to increased support for fully free operating systems, including fully free support in Linux-libre.

Increased security is one of the things you get with the pursuit of software freedom for its own sake. I think RMS very much recognizes the security enhancements that come along with Linux-libre and why his organization won't recommend a system with nonfree blobs in it. I'd expect that Stallman would say security isn't a goal unto itself, but a feature of a more important concern: software freedom.

The objection you seem to have missed is that proprietors treat users badly without the user's ability to effectively improve the program for their own needs (even by hiring someone to do this work on their behalf). So better to rejecting non-free software on ethical grounds. Whether spies have used the power of a proprietary Angry Birds is a weak response compared to asking whether anybody should have to choose a potential loss of privacy to play a videogame. Tracking users (no matter how) without their explicit knowledge is something people don't know about and, when they learn about it, don't like. It's a shame you have such personal anger toward Stallman that you refuse to convey understanding his points. Your namecalling ("bearded zealot", "mooching") and lame counterarguments like "There's more effective ways for snoops to get info than through angry birds" run the risk of reading as tacit acceptance of RMS's points without giving him due credit for bringing those points to the public.

We don't know who can get data from RMS's Loonsong MIPS machine but paying attention to these issues and using what's available to practical effect is leading by example; a far more respectful approach which complaining and namecalling just can't beat.

It's so convenient to argue against yourself isn't it? No need to ask him what he actually thinks (his email address is readily available) or read any of his many essays. You might be particularly interested in a list of surveillance examples found in proprietary software including one pertinant description for a program you just mentioned—"Angry Birds spies for companies, and the NSA takes advantage to spy through it too.".