By Michael Mulvey on October 24, 2012 9:13 AM
I still believe the Verge's scoring system is complete bullshit.
Joshua Topolsky reviewed Microsoft Surface and gave it a score of 7.0 (out of a total 10) and yet says this in his summary:
The promise of the Surface was that it could deliver a best-in-class tablet experience, but then transform into the PC you needed when heavier lifting was required. Instead of putting down my tablet and picking up my laptop, I would just snap on my keyboard and get my work done. But that's not what the Surface offers, at least not in my experience. It does the job of a tablet and the job of a laptop half as well as other devices on the market, and it often makes that job harder, not easier. Instead of being a no-compromise device, it often feels like a more-compromise one.
With those sentiments, how the hell do you arrive at a 7.0?
The Verge gave the iPad (3rd generation) a score of 9.3—the highest they've given to a tablet. Given that Topolsky says Surface "does the job of a tablet and the job of a laptop half as well as other devices", then one should conclude the highest score it should receive is a 4.7.
Are they giving Surface brownie points for the *click* sound the keyboard covers make and the pretty colors they come in?
After reading the Wired and (extensive) Ars Technica reviews of Surface, I'd like to adjust my original feeling Surface is half-baked. It now seems to me that the problem with Surface (and Windows RT) isn't so much that it's half-baked, but that it's trying to be everything, and in doing so is doing no one thing great.
Ironically, by claiming they "won't compromise" on desktop and tablet experiences, they're clearly comprimising both.
This is unfortunate, because like the Palm Pre (and webOS), I was really hoping Surface (and WIndows RT) would be a solid contender to the iPad (and iOS).