"They are about the same price and the iPad is a far more elegant and simple solution." - Elaborate. You didn't give any substance at all and that's an empty statement. How is it more elegant? It is an accessory. You can bet that the Microsoft marketing blitz will pound on this. They will drive home the point that you can write your term paper on your surface. I guarantee it.
The only good argument against the surface right now is pre-existing ecosystems. People have apps/music/etc purchased on other ecosystems and that makes it tougher to drive home adoption among these 'entrenched' customers. But if the product is appealing enough, that can be overcome. The jury is still out on whether people will drop their iPads in favor of Surfaces.
Haven't we put the "it's an accessory" bit to bed yet? It's awfully tired.
Also, the second someone needs to use that keyboard's bizarre-o trackpad to drive the software to write their term paper, you can bet the utility of having "traditional" apps on your tablet is going to be more carefully considered than simply assumed.
The argument against the surface remains that when you need a tablet, a 'full desktop OS' is not a feature you care about. And when you need a 'full desktop OS', the surface may not be a very good one.
So the comparison will, again (and as it almost always does) hinge on what people need or want these things for and how good each product is at performing those tasks in reality.
Also, pretending that all the iPad brings is ecosystem is just as silly as flatly stating the iPad as more elegant.
We, as a collective community of tech industry members, have put it to bed. But that isn't at all true on the consumer side. For example: In one of my classes today, we were talking about how we're going to be taking our exam online. We come into class, bring our laptops, and write out essays and submit them. The teacher explicitely mentioned not to bring a tablet, even going further as to saying that doing that would be silly. A girl who usually brings an iPad to class on a regular basis agreed with the professor and mentioned that "yeah, it's better for consumption". That in itself, proves to me that it has not been put to bed yet.
And on the ecosystem thing I agreed with someone else who posted below that I meant more than that.
Not just the ecosystem. A reliable company behind it.
Remember the PlaysForSure fiasco.
I could invest lots of money on surface digital content, and lose every cent of that content if suddenly surface is not the market leader and MS wants to steer in another direction.
By elegant I mean the iPad hardware/OS is more focussed and better defined. Microsoft compromises by trying to blur the world of laptop and tablet, the iPad is all tablet.
The MS solution is less elegant because it lacks confident direction.
"The only good argument against the surface right now is pre-existing ecosystems."
It isn't just ecosystems, it is massive mindshare (and keep in mind I say this as someone who is anti-Apple).
For a lot of people I know who don't own tablets yet tablets basically are "iPads", the way web searching is "Googling" or adhesive bandages are "Band-Aids".
"Oh is that a Droid iPad? I've heard of those, but never saw one before".
Yes, I agree. That too, mindshare is very important. Almost as important as marketshare! I meant to lump this in to my statement but didn't elaborate on it.
The only good argument against the surface right now is pre-existing ecosystems. People have apps/music/etc purchased on other ecosystems and that makes it tougher to drive home adoption among these 'entrenched' customers. But if the product is appealing enough, that can be overcome. The jury is still out on whether people will drop their iPads in favor of Surfaces.