Recommended reading

Microsoft May Introduce Surface Mini Tablet in June

News
By published

Unnamed sources in Taiwan's supply chain claim that Microsoft plans to launch "an array" of new mobile devices with displays 8.5 inches and below in June during Computex 2014. One of these will likely be the Surface Mini we've heard about for months and thought to be arriving on the market in April.

However, there's an interesting tidbit from DigiTimes that describes "an integrated OS derived from Windows RT and Windows Phone." The quote seems to hint that the devices revealed in June will feature the end result of a merged Windows Phone and Windows RT.

Sources state that Microsoft will initially tackle the 8.5-inch and below segment in the smartphone and tablet markets because the line between the two have become blurred. Does this mean Microsoft may release a "Surface" phone after all? Maybe the company is planning to reveal a smartwatch? We can only speculate.

Originally, the Surface Mini tablet was expected to launch alongside the Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2. Sources said that didn't happen because members of the Surface Mini team were pulled off the project to get the Xbox One finalized and consumer ready.

Sources are now claiming that the Surface Mini will have the ability to recognize the user's face and hand movements. Sources also said it will likely work much smoother than "Air Gestures" used by the Samsung Galaxy S4 and Galaxy Note 3. The Surface Mini will even sport a 1080p display, an Intel "Bay Trail" chip, and run the full Windows 8.1 Update 1.

So what exactly will be shown at Computex? It probably won't be the Surface 2 with LTE support, as it doesn't fit within the 8.5 inches and below form factor category. That device will likely show up this April along with the Office "Metro" apps we've been waiting for.

Keep in mind that all this Computex talk stems from unnamed sources, so we'll have to just wait and see what surprises Microsoft has in store between April and June.

TOPICS
11 Comments Comment from the forums
  • BJohnX
    I like the idea making a tablet with phone calls,. but 2 things I disagree for this Surface Phone idea which wouldn't make me buy it: 1) Too small screen, I am hoping that Microsoft would release a bigger Surface 2 Pro, because 10.8 inches feels like too small, and 8.5 is even more terrible for working. 2) Surface RT can't install any program outside the app store, but it's more going to be a phone so whatever, it's not going to be a working station or low-mid end gaming PC.If Microsoft would make a Surface tablet, which is 13" - 15" 1080p screen, which runs Windows 8.1 (or 9 in time), has about the same specs as Surface Pro 2 but better GPU, AND including Windows Phone features, then I'd be greatly pleased, as I can replace it with my desktop and crappy standard phone, which can even run PC GAMES on it!
    Reply
  • JOSHSKORN
    Make me a 17" Surface Pro 2 or 3 tablet and I'm on board! Particularly if the keyboard layout is identical to a desktop keyboard, WITH a number pad, arrows and the 9 buttons above the arrows most people don't use (I use them).
    Reply
  • Zetto
    14 inch, the same size as a sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper, it's a tried and tested size arrived at over many years of experimentation. Business would snap them up like candy, pure gold. I don't get why it's not here yet, panel cost?
    Reply
  • XGrabMyY
    Windows 8 Phone and RT being folded into the same platform would be insanely good for everyone. I'm looking at a Windows 8 Phone (Lumia Icon) now that Videolan has finally announced VLC is almost ready for primetime on RT/Phone
    Reply
  • zodiacfml
    Nice, 1080p with Bay trail.....but this will fail fast if this is twice as expensive as the Asus T100
    Reply
  • gadgety
    Bring out a Surface Pro Mini LTE with Pen input and Microsoft may be on to a winner. Or even better, bring pen input to the Surface line. Phone capability makes size important - the device needs to go into a suit jacket pocket, or similar. Furthermore Microsoft has to straighten out Skype functionality with BT headsets, which today is appalling.
    Reply
  • rwinches
    Not to be outdone at losing huge amounts of money, Microsoft's new CEO forges ahead with another hairbrained ill-conceived marketing strategy.

    Yes, it's true, after going over the books, MS new CEO found overlooked funds just ripe for the losing, so it's full steam ahead.
    Reply
  • rad666
    12733742 said:
    14 inch, the same size as a sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper, it's a tried and tested size arrived at over many years of experimentation. Business would snap them up like candy, pure gold. I don't get why it's not here yet, panel cost?

    That and/or the weight.
    Reply
  • back_by_demand
    Price will always be the key here, make it affordable and I will happily trade in my Android tablet
    Reply
  • mahlonslee
    Yeah they need to get the features (AND AVAILABILITY!) sorted on these Bay Trail-D embedded boards, there seems to be a huge amount of interest for many application sets, and in general the features seem to be mish-mashed and oddly put together.Here's what most people want to see:1) Custom Router/Firewall Build a. Dual Gigabit NICs built in standard on all. b. PCI-e x 1 and PCI-e x 4 on premier boards, PCI legacy on base. c. Mini PCI-e and/or M-Sata on premier boards d. Base board w/ @ least 2 SATA2, premier w/ @ least 1 SATA3 in addition. e. Acceptable Video ports: VGA, DVI, DisplayPort f. Base models with USB 2.0, and Premier with USB 3.0. At least 2 on base. g. Form Factors: Mini-ITX, Thin-ITX2) HTPC (Home Theatre PC) a. One Gigabit NIC standard on base model. b. Focused on Bay-Trail D models with higher graphics support. c. Mini PCI-e and/or M-Sata on all boards. d. At least one SATA3 connection. Should total at min. 3 ports. e. Acceptable Video ports: HDMI, DisplayPort, DVI f. Base should include at least one USB 3.0 and one USB 2.0. g. PCI-e x 1 or PCI-e x 4 on all. h. Form Factors: Mini-ITX, Thin-ITX3) Non-Gaming Desktop a. This is what we basically are seeing now with odd features included.
    Reply