[scottchin]

As mentioned by someone in another thread, one possibility is that Surface is partly meant to set the bar for third-party manufacturers.

It's high enough make the competition (Dell, HP, etc) put out good products that won't tarnish the new Windows platform image. But not so high as to make third parties not want to bother competing.

This was a problem with early Android. There were so many poor devices that the entire Android brand was hurt (but since recovered).

[mtgx]

I think that's just smoke screen. Microsoft clearly wants to be in the hardware business and to make money this way. They are envious of how easily Apple can make a ton of profit with a lot less "market share". I don't think they really care what happens to the manufacturers, if in the end they make more money on hardware than they do through licensing.

[TheAmazingIdiot]

Requirements for licensing Windows RT could have also stipulated certain hardware minimums. I know that MS did something similar with netbooks, where they stipulates hardware maximums.

I believe the major difference is that Microsoft has entered the computer manufacturers arena as a 1st tier manufacturer. Everybody else is now tier 2. And this leads to problems with monopolies and vertical integration.