Microsoft unveils budget AI laptops with Qualcomm chips
Listen to article
Microsoft on Tuesday said it will release a new laptop and tablet with chips from Qualcomm at lower prices than before, aiming to get new AI features to a broader set of customers.
The newest Surface 13-inch laptop and Surface Pro 12-inch tablet will go on sale on May 20, with the laptop starting at $899 and the tablet starting at $799.
Both will feature Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Plus chips, and they will be priced slightly between competing products from Apple such as its MacBook Air, which starts at $999 and its iPads, where Air Pro models start at $649 and $999.
But Microsoft's new offerings will be its lowest-priced yet with support for what it calls 'Copilot+' features that it introduced last year. That bundle of features includes things like the ability to ask how to change the computer's settings as a natural language question rather than sifting through settings menus or the ability to ask for an AI-generated first draft of a word document.
Microsoft has set performance computing chip requirements for the new Copilot+ label, which has meant that most of those AI features are only available on machines that cost $1,000 or more.
Pavan Davuluri, corporate vice president of Windows and Devices at Microsoft, said the new Surface devices are aimed at getting those features to a broader set of users, especially students or young professionals at the start of their careers.
'We think these new Surface Pro and laptops are for a set of customers for whom affordability is going to be important,' Davuluri told reporters during a press briefing on April 28.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Tesla's $380b wipeout marks biggest 2025 loss
Listen to article Tesla is the worst-performing large-cap stock this year, thanks to declining electric vehicle demand, Chief Executive Elon Musk's political controversies over his ties to far-right groups, and now, his public feud with President Donald Trump. Tesla shares slumped on Thursday, after Trump on social media threatened to cut off government contracts with Elon Musk's companies, following Musk's sharp criticism of the president's signature tax and spending bill on his X social media platform. The market capitalisation of Tesla Inc has fallen 29.3% to $917 billion so far this year, the biggest drop among big companies in the world. Tesla, which ranked eighth globally in market capitalisation at the beginning of the year, slipped to tenth as of June 5. The company's shares rose in early trading on Friday, as investors took some comfort from White House aides scheduling a call with Musk to broker peace after a public feud with Trump. Apple, which began the year as the world's most valuable company, has slipped to No 3 this year, dragged down by weak demand in China, Trump's tariff threats, and slower progress in AI. Its market capitalisation has declined over 20% this year, falling to $2.99 trillion as of Thursday. Meanwhile, Microsoft has claimed the No 1 spot in market capitalisation, driven by surging demand for AI services, including its partnership with OpenAI and the integration of tools like Microsoft 365 Copilot. Tesla shares clawed back from steep losses on Friday, as a war of words between CEO Elon Musk and US President Donald Trump appeared to cool amid report that White House aides were scheduling a call to help broker peace. Shares were up 5% in premarket trading after Musk signalled on X he was open to easing tensions with Trump, agreeing with comments from hedge fund manager Bill Ackman calling for a detente. The spat between the world's most powerful man and its richest erased more than $150 billion from Tesla's market value on Thursday, the company's biggest drop in one session. Short-sellers, or investors betting against the stock, pocketed nearly $4 billion from the drop, the second-biggest single-day of profit on record, according to data from Ortex. Tensions escalated after Musk stepped up criticism of Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill, which proposes largely ending the popular $7,500 EV tax incentive by the end of 2025. In response, Trump suggested cuts to the government's contracts with Musk's companies, including rocket maker SpaceX. "It might be a bit too hopeful to think their relationship will ever go back to what it once was, but if cooler heads prevail and the tension eases, that would definitely be a big improvement for Tesla," said Tesla shareholder Matthew Britzman, who is an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. An open clash with Trump could pose multiple hurdles for Tesla and the rest of Musk's sprawling business empire. The US Transportation Department regulates vehicle design standards and would have a big say in whether Tesla can mass-produce robotaxis without pedals and steering wheels. Tesla stock is down 29.5% this year after a 14% drop on Thursday. Still, the shares trade at 120 times expected earnings, a lofty multiple compared to other automakers and even tech giants such as Nvidia. The shares have been on a turbulent ride since last July when Musk backed Trump's White House bid. They surged initially as investors bet on less regulatory pressure for robotaxis, but tumbled due to soft sales and brand fallout from Musk's political stance. Some analysts said the rift was likely to blow over as it would be detrimental to both the president and his biggest backer. "Those are obviously threats that are unlikely to come into fruition," said City Index analyst Fiona Cincotta. "I don't expect this to blow out into anything more serious than a war of words for a couple of days."
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Apple of discord
Listen to article When Jon Stewart does a segment on international politics or economics, you pay attention. My apologies for the double negative in the next sentence, but it conveys my sentiment adequately: there is nothing not to like there. Stewart and John Oliver both remain prescient in their comedic timing, activism and political acumen. Recently, Stewart hosted a segment with author and journalist Patrick McGee, who has written a book on the relationship between China and Apple. It is called Apple in China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company. The explosive book claims Apple accidentally built China into a tech superpower while trapping itself in the process. Based on 200+ interviews with former Apple executives, it posits that Apple's $275 billion investment in China exceeded the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe. Starting in 2003, Apple's pursuit of cheap manufacturing evolved into something unprecedented under Tim Cook. The company trained 28 million Chinese workers and transferred cutting-edge knowledge through what McGee calls "the Apple Squeeze" — sending thousands of engineers to educate suppliers like Foxconn. This massive technology transfer inadvertently supported China's plan for technological independence. Ironically, Apple created its own competition. Chinese companies it trained now outcompete Apple domestically, while Apple has discovered it can't easily leave — replicating operations elsewhere would cost hundreds of billions. As Apple grew more successful, it became politically captured, removing VPN apps and storing Chinese data locally to maintain access. McGee believes the world's most valuable company became trapped by its own success, transforming from a symbol of innovation into the unwitting architect of its biggest rival's rise. The book doesn't outright present a solution or reset to fix this paradox. The reason I mentioned the Jon Stewart interview at the outset rather than the book itself is that, in that interview, McGee seems to offer some alternatives. They discuss President Trump's desire to reshore the industrial base — agreeing with the principle, but noting it may not be possible given business bottom lines and balance sheets. McGee goes on to say: "I'm a big fan of friend-shoring rather than reshoring. Right, we should be doing what we did in China, but with allied nations like India, like Mexico." I'll get back to the idea of "friend-shoring" in a bit. But you have to appreciate that his timing is perfect. The world was still taking stock of the "deepseek moment" when more surprises were sprung: Chinese advances in quantum computing; the tough competition Tesla is facing from BYD and other Chinese EV companies; and, last but not least, the short-lived India-Pakistan war which tanked Dassault's stocks while skyrocketing Chengdu's. It's definitely a question on every analyst's mind: how did we end up here? Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world of magical realism and some twist of fate presented you the 'culprit' on a platter? I find McGee's quest to do just that. But the real world doesn't work that way. In fact, I remain highly sceptical of people who come bearing gifts of simplistic explanations. You are entitled to question my assertion that the explanation here is simplistic. This, of course, is a very well-crafted and documented book, full of internally consistent nuances. But there lies a problem too. Despite so much neatly packed information, the book has a broader contextual deficit. Remember, there is a very effective strategy to influence a reader's mind if you are a clever writer — and it involves the exploitation of the cognitive load theory. The theory states that our working memory can only hold a small amount of information at any one time, and that instructional methods should avoid overloading it to maximise learning. This method does the opposite. You subject the reader's mind to information overload. While too many details build your credibility, shock, horror (depending on the nature of information), and confusion can break your mental defences and leave you prone to the author's manipulations. Even if we want to put a positive spin on this, McGee's work has a context problem, an agency problem, and a resolution problem. Context problem — because there is hardly any in-depth inquiry into why other markets in the same price range (India, Mexico) lost this opportunity to China. India's case is quite interesting, by the way. It's not as if India wasn't in competition. In fact, an entire book can be written on how Maruti Suzuki and the service industry built India's economy today. But in the end, it's a matter of priorities: automobiles over smart technology; services over manufacturing; low-hanging fruit over strategic planning; training over immediate profit. We know who chose what. Agency problem — because at least its central thesis robs China of its agency. A cultural distinction has to be made. Perhaps a better rebuttal of this two-dimensional image of China is presented by Kai-Fu Lee in his brilliant book, AI Superpowers. It tells the story of original, intense entrepreneurial competition and innovation, strategic planning and investment, cultural factors that drive rapid iteration and risk-taking, and indigenous innovation capabilities. You can see why I'm suspicious. Resolution problem — because third-world problems are presented both as the diagnosis and the resolution. Friend-shoring, so to speak. This is what I hear: "Hey, this idea didn't work the first time. Let's do it all over again in similar situations and not learn anything from the mistakes. We invested in a third-world country and now it's giving us tough competition. Let's now pick another one with an emergent democracy deficit and replicate the model. What could go wrong?" I'm not a big fan of decoupling, but even if a de-risking effort has to be made, here's what I would have done: brought Apple's infrastructure to Canada near the US border. Canada has a lot of land and a smaller population. Then, in consultation with the Canadian and US governments, I would have brought in foreign, cheaper labour to the new plants and cities. This way, high-paying jobs like designing and engineering could be kept in the US, while building a product and labour value chain with total customisation options. This way, the US regains control of its technology and reshoring becomes feasible. Canada and the US move closer, talent from third-world countries gets a better life even in these anti-immigration times, and Canada adds to its working population. But for some reason, these guys won't tell you such solutions exist. India has an even stronger lobby than I originally thought.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
OpenAI appeals data preservation order in NYT copyright case
OpenAI is appealing an order in a copyright case brought by the New York Times that requires it to preserve ChatGPT output data indefinitely, arguing that the order conflicts with privacy commitments it has made with users. Last month, a court said OpenAI had to preserve and segregate all output log data after the Times asked for the data to be preserved. 'We will fight any demand that compromises our users' privacy; this is a core principle,' OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in a post on X on Thursday. OpenAI to open office in Seoul amid growing demand for ChatGPT 'We think this (The Times demand) was an inappropriate request that sets a bad precedent.' U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein was asked to vacate the May data preservation order on June 3, a court filing showed. The New York Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours. The newspaper sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023, accusing them of using millions of its articles without permission to train the large language model behind its popular chatbot. Stein said in an April court opinion that the Times had made a case that OpenAI and Microsoft were responsible for inducing users to infringe its copyrights. The opinion explained an earlier order that rejected parts of an OpenAI and Microsoft motion to dismiss, saying that the Times' 'numerous' and 'widely publicized' examples of ChatGPT producing material from its articles justified allowing the claims to continue.
