Surface Studio: Aspirational or Delusional?

Make no mistake, Microsoft’s recently announced Surface Studio is a stunner, with its 28-inch liquid-smooth 4.5K display. But only the one percent can afford this device. Given that reality, I don’t quite see the point.

Of course, Surface Studio launches into a different world than the one the original Surface faced in 2012. And while virtually all Surface devices since have been high-end products, Microsoft formally announced a strategy shift with last year’s releases of Surface Book and Surface Pro 4. Surface, we were told, was now a premium brand, and Microsoft would deliver the expected quality—and price tags—to match.

But this week’s Surface Studio announcement is somewhat flabbergasting, a crazy escalation of this thinking. And while I’ve already seen some Microsoft fans race to explain away its lofty pricing, I’m not convinced.

Consider the events of the past year, which I outlined recently in Surface Book: Past, Present, and Future. And then balance that with the fact that Microsoft has in fact made a credible case for a leadership role in the PC industry, despite the reliability issues we’ve seen with recent Surface products. (Most Surface Book/Pro 4 issues were caused by Intel, after all.) One need only look at the rampant Surface Pro knock-offs to see that other PC makers think so too.

And they are very much premium devices. A Surface Pro 4 with a Core i5 processor, 8 GB of RAM, 256 GB of storage and a Type Cover will set you back $1430, and a similarly configured Surface Book is $1700. But comparable HP and Lenovo PCs are hundreds less, and that’s the point: Surface is aspirational, and while most customers can’t afford such a thing, the devices inspire PC makers and customers alike to set their sights a bit higher. If those customers choose an HP, Lenovo, or other PC, fine: Microsoft still wins, and the death of the PC is pushed back further yet again.

Some will argue that the Surface Studio positions itself similarly in the All-In-One market. But does it? What’s the market for stupidly expensive AIO PCs?

Apple’s iMac is the dominant player in the AIO market. It lacks a touch screen and other Surface Studio features, yes. But an iMac with a 27-inch 4K (4096 x 2304) screen, a Core i5 processor, 8 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB Fusion Drive costs $1900. That same configuration with Surface Studio costs an incredible $3000. And that’s the cheapest model.

We’re in Bizarro World, folks. After a year of shipping incredibly expensive and buggy hardware, Microsoft thinks it can command a 50 percent premium. Over Apple.

Are there any comparable Windows PCs in the market? No, not exactly. But HP sells more AIOs than you probably realize, and some of them are really impressive. And if you look just at touch-enabled models with (non-4K) 27-inch screens, the prices range from $999 to $1499. In other words, the most expensive model is half the price of the least expensive Surface Studio model.

If we accept that a 25 percent price premium is aspirational, how do we explain the 100 percent price jump? That seems insane to me. Delusional, even. Yes, accounting for the fact that the HPs don’t include all of that incredible Surface Studio functionality.

To be clear, the Surface Studio really does deliver. The 3:2 4.5K screen is incredible, and is likely what you’re really paying for here. The pen is critical for certain workflows, as is its drafting board usage scenario. Yes to all of it. Yes, yes, yes.

But $3000 for the base model? Of a Windows PC?

This pricing flies in the face of everything that I believe the PC stands for, and while there is always room for the one percenters in the audience, this device is a non-starter for most Windows PC buyers. And by most, I literally mean about one percent of the market. If desktop PCs are about 30 percent of PCs sold today, what’s one percent of 30 percent? In a market that, by the way, is shrinking, a condition that will not be changed by this example of trickle-down economics.

Further, I don’t understand why Microsoft didn’t offer a single option for the less well-heeled. A Surface display, for example, that we could add to an existing PC: That device would respect the traditions of what makes the PC great because it wouldn’t require an expensive new PC purchase. So would a cheaper Surface Studio version with a smaller screen. You know, maybe one that could handle single sheet of paper?

And it’s not just Surface Studio.

The Surface Book with Performance Base—a new, even higher-end version of Surface Book, but with a dumb new name—follows a similar insanity, with pricing that starts at $2400. Microsoft, we’re down here, under the clouds. Please look down. You’re not just floating. You’re high.

I’ve written a lot in the past about Microsoft’s Apple envy, and how it distracted the company for far too long. But I thought that was in the past. Instead, with Surface Studio—and Surface Book with Performance Base, too—Microsoft seems to be taking its Apple envy to 11. It’s not just content to price its Surface products in the same range as Apple does. It is pricing them even higher. Much, much higher.

I’ve heard the arguments against this thinking. That the professionals who “need”—or, more aptly, could justify—such products aren’t concerned about the pricing. Bullshit. There is no such thing as a PC that Microsoft sells on the web that is worth $4200, the cost of the most expensive Surface Studio model today. And as noted, that market of professionals who need/want/can afford such a thing is tiny.

It’s not all bad news, of course. I have no doubt that various PC makers will rush to copy this design. And there is no reason that copy-cat Surface Studios couldn’t cost far less. Some will even improve on the design, as we’ve seen with the Surface Pro 4 clones. If and when that does happen, Microsoft can perhaps declare mission accomplished. Today, all I can say is: Redmond, we have a problem.