At a glanceExpert`s Rating Pros Good build quality for the price Integrated kickstand minimizes thickness Bright display with respectable image quality 144Hz refresh rate provides good motion clarity Cons HDMI port is not full-sized HDR input is technically supported, but it’s not great Doesn’t support Adaptive Sync Our Verdict The Arzopa Z1FC is billed as a “portable gaming monitor,” but it’s actually a solid choice for anyone who needs an affordable portable display. Price When Reviewed This value will show the geolocated pricing text for product undefined Best Pricing Today Best Prices Today: Arzopa Z1FC Retailer Price $169.99 View Deal $189.99 View Deal Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide Product Price Price comparison from Backmarket The Arzopa Z1FC is positioned as a budget portable gaming monitor, and it’s certainly decent in that role. But contrary to how it’s marketed, the monitor is arguably even better when tapped for general use and day-to-day productivity. Though not perfect, the Arzopa Z1FC is a versatile and competitively priced portable monitor with a bright, high-refresh display. Read on to learn more, then see our roundup of the best monitors for comparison. Arzopa Z1FC specs and features The Arzopa Z1FC is sold as a portable gaming monitor, but its specifications are a decent fit for a wide variety of tasks. It has an IPS LCD with 1080p resolution that includes multiple USB-C inputs, and supports HDR. One feature the monitor notably lacks is Adaptive Sync. Arguably, that means it’s best used as an office and productivity monitor, as Adaptive Sync is essential to smooth gameplay in many situations. Display size: 16.1-inch 16:9 aspect ratio Native resolution: 1920×1080 Panel type: IPS LCD Refresh rate: 144Hz Adaptive Sync: No HDR: Yes, HDR enabled Ports: 2x USB-C with DisplayPort and Power Delivery, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4 Audio: 2x 1-watt speakers Added features: Two-pocket carrying case Warranty: 1-year warranty Price: $199.99 MSRP, $169.99 on sale The Arzopa Z1FC’s price can range from mediocre (at $199.99 MSRP) to rather affordable (at its lowest sale price of $169.99). When on sale, the Z1FC’s pricing is competitive with the alternatives, though a few may be sold for less depending on the day. Shoppers should also know there are two versions of the Z1FC. I reviewed the version that has a carrying case (described below). It can also be purchased without the carrying case. The version without a carrying case seems like a better deal, as it can be purchased for as little as $96.99 and appears identical in images. I haven’t tested it, though, so the image quality results here only apply to the version with the case. Arzopa Z1FC design Given the price, you might expect design and build weaknesses from the Arzopa Z1FC, but that’s not true. The portable monitor has an aluminum rear panel attached to plastic bezels. Though it’s not remarkable, the overall aesthetic is attractive and similar to competitive portable monitors at higher price points. The monitor has a thin aluminum kickstand that does its job well, keeping the monitor stable on your desk. You can tip the monitor if you bump a corner, but it’s stable enough that it won’t fall over unless given a moderate push. Portrait orientation was similarly stable. The kickstand folds completely flush with the monitor’s back when not in use, which helps with portability. Matthew Smith / Foundry Speaking of which, the Z1FC’s portability is outstanding. The monitor weighs just 1.7 pounds and measures only three-tenths of an inch thick. It’s unlikely you’ll even notice the extra weight if you’re using a backpack meant for a 14- or 15-inch laptop and have the laptop stowed. As a bonus, Arzopa includes the best carrying case I’ve encountered with any portable monitor. It’s made from an attractive ribbed material and features two interior pockets, providing enough space for both the monitor and a laptop. The padding is too thin for long-distance travel, but fine if you need to carry the portable monitor to a meeting with a client or to your company’s office. Don’t get me wrong: it’s not going to challenge a high-quality bag from a recognized brand. But for a throw-in sold with a portable monitor, it’s great. Matthew Smith / Foundry Arzopa includes the best carrying case I’ve encountered with any portable monitor. Arzopa Z1FC connectivity A pair of USB-C ports with Power Delivery and DisplayPort serve as the primary video and power inputs for the Arzopa Z1FC. The monitor doesn’t ship with a USB-C power brick, so you’ll need to rely on power provided by the device that it’s connected to or bring your own. The Z1FC had no problem receiving adequate power and video from my Apple Mac Mini M4 and Microsoft Surface Laptop 13-inch, so the lack of brick shouldn’t be an issue unless you plan to use HDMI. HDMI can be a headache, though, as the Z1FC has a mini-HDMI port instead of a full-sized HDMI port. An HDMI to mini-HDMI cable is included, which is nice, but you might be in trouble if you lose or forget the cable while traveling. This type of HDMI input is much less common than a full-sized HDMI. All the Z1FC’s ports are found on the monitor’s left flank, which can be inconvenient if you plan to sit the monitor to the left of your display, as your cables will need to snake around the monitor. Arzopa Z1FC menus and features The Arzopa Z1FC’s menu system is basic but better than average for the category. It includes a dedicated button for opening the menu and selecting menu options. As basic as it sounds, it’s not found on some budget alternative monitors I’ve reviewed. When it’s omitted, users often need to long-press buttons to activate the on-screen menu. There’s more. The Z1FC includes settings for brightness, contrast, sharpness, color temperature, and RGB color adjustment. It also supports 4:3 video input. These, too, are basic features not always found on budget portable monitors. A pair of 1-watt speakers provide audio, but they’re as weak as their power output suggests. They’re okay for listening to a podcast in a pinch but otherwise serve no practical purpose. Arzopa Z1FC image quality The Arzopa Z1FC’s low price kept my expectations for its image quality in check. That turned out to be a good call, as the portable monitor’s SDR image quality is mediocre. However, the overall image quality is serviceable and remains competitive with more expensive portable monitors. Matthew Smith / Foundry Brightness is a highlight for the Arzopa Z1FC. While its brightness of 337 nits is technically mid-pack among the competitors referenced in the graph, I think that pushing past the 300 nits point is an important advantage. Monitors with less than 300 nits at maximum brightness can look dim in moderately lit to brightly lit rooms. That’s doubly important for a portable monitor, as you’re more likely to use it in areas where you don’t have control over the lighting. The monitor has an anti-glare finish, as well, which is effective at reducing glare from larger light sources, such as windows. Smaller light sources, such as lamps and overhead lights, can still be an issue.   Matthew Smith / Foundry Anti-glare finishes tend to reduce contrast, and the Arzopa is no exception. It produced a contrast ratio of 1170:1 at 50 percent of brightness (and similar figures at other brightness levels). That’s not awful but, as the graph shows, it’s a bit behind the pack. The lower contrast ratio isn’t obvious when using the Arzopa Z1FC in a bright room. In darker rooms, however, the dreaded “IPS glow” appears as a hazy gray sheen over dark scenes.  It’s caused by the backlight shining through the display even when it should appear black. All portable monitors without an OLED display panel suffer this problem, but with the Z1FC it’s more noticeable than most. The Innocn 15K1F is the only monitor on the graph with an OLED panel, which is why its contrast ratio runs away from the competition. Matthew Smith / Foundry The Arzopa Z1FC’s color performance is either mediocre or good, depending on your perspective. It doesn’t defeat most alternatives, and its coverage of the DCI-P3 and AdobeRGB are inadequate for serious content creation. On the other hand, it delivers color performance similar to more expensive competitors at a budget price. The Dell Pro 14 Plus, for example, is three times more expensive yet has no significant advantage in color gamut. Matthew Smith / Foundry It’s a similar story in color accuracy. The Arzopa Z1FC’s color accuracy is not that impressive, but it’s not bad, and it’s in line with the competition. Since it’s the least expensive option here, it’s easy to call that a win. In addition, this level of color accuracy is more than enough for casual gaming and office productivity, which is what the Z1FC is most likely to be used for. Sharpness isn’t bad, either. The monitor has a 16.1-inch panel with 1920×1080 resolution. That works out to be about 137 pixels per inch. For comparison, that’s better than a 27-inch 1440p monitor (about 110 ppi) and less than a 27-inch 4K monitor (about 160 ppi). Pixelation is sometimes visible around very small fonts and UI elements, but the display looks reasonably sharp when displaying videos, games, and Microsoft Word. Arzopa Z1FC HDR image quality The Arzopa Z1FC technically supports HDR but, like most portable monitors, it’s rather bad at it. Switching to HDR increased maximum brightness to about 360 nits, but the monitor’s contrast ratio didn’t improve. The color gamut is also an issue, as HDR content targets a wider color gamut than what this monitor can deliver. If great HDR is your priority, the Z1FC isn’t going to do the job. The same is true for all price-competitive portable monitors, however. Arzopa Z1FC motion performance Gamers will enjoy the Arzopa Z1FC’s improved refresh rate, though with a few caveats. Motion clarity is good, for the price. The monitor’s 144Hz refresh is noticeably crisper than a 60Hz portable monitor when viewing fast-moving objects or turning the camera in a 3D game. Blur is still obvious, though, and can make small objects or moving text difficult to read. Your opinion on the motion clarity will likely hinge on what you’ve tried before. Those coming from a 60Hz display will be impressed. If you’ve witnessed a 240Hz OLED (or better), however, you’ll be disappointed.The Z1FC unfortunately lacks Adaptive Sync, which is a serious mark against its gaming credentials. Its absence means you must accept distracting screen tearing (which is ugly) or cap game frame rates using in-game V-Sync settings (which may reduce motion clarity and smoothness, depending on the game’s frame rate). The Z1FC doesn’t support any form of Adaptive Sync used by current game consoles, either. Most price-competitive monitors also lack Adaptive Sync, but there are a few that provide it. Examples include the Aopen 16OG7QT and UPerfect 16. I’ve not tested those models, however, so I can’t say how their image quality compares to the Arzopa.   Despite the lack of Adaptive Sync, I think the Arzopa’s motion clarity is good for the price. Honestly, it’s a bit strange to me that many more expensive portable monitors, like the Viewsonic TD-1656 and Dell Pro 14 Plus, remain stuck on 60Hz. The Arzopa’s motion is clearly better than either of them. Should you buy the Arzopa Z1FC? The Arzopa Z1FC is a solid option if you want an inexpensive portable monitor that covers the basics and then some. It delivers a bright, attractive image and decent motion clarity alongside an attractive exterior design. The Z1FC is a particularly sensible buy when it’s on sale for $170 or less, as its image quality can rival alternatives priced north of $300. Read...

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres spoke at the start of the UN Oceans Conference in Nice, France. Read...

It’s always a strange moment saying goodbye to a technology you’ve used forever, and I now find myself waving farewell to another one: the humble spinning-platter hard drive. Sure, I’ve been using SSDs for close to 15 years for my operating system and gaming drives, and SSDs are obviously superior for performance and durability. But for a very long time, cost and capacity have been against them and firmly in favor of traditional hard drives. I think it’s time to call it—I don’t need a hard drive in my main PC anymore, and neither do you. Here’s why you should make the switch. Why I stayed stuck on my HDD I first started building and working on PCs in the early ’00s, and back then hard drives were a must-have component. They were the only way to store data in a consumer PC—outside of crazy RAM drives—and I usually rocked a pair of them: a fast drive for the operating system and games, and another cheaper one for longer-term storage. Cut to a few years later when I started testing SSDs and the future was suddenly clear: HDDs for gaming were done. While I still have some friends I’ve yet to convince of this, the writing has been on the wall for a long, long, long time. SSDs outperform HDDs by a long shot. Replacing an internal drive with an SSD is one of the best upgrades you can make.Western Digital But even as lucky as I was—I’d been getting sent SSDs for testing—I still never used an SSD as my large backup storage drive option. I still only trusted hard drives with my precious family photos and expansive collections of (legally) ripped movies and TV shows. Because even though SSDs were faster, HDDs were more reliable for years-long storage. And that’s how it stayed for over a decade. I kept adding newer, faster SSDs to the point where I now have a hodge-podge collection of NVMe and SATA drives cluttering up my rig, with my Steam library stretched across 10+ TBs of super-fast SSD storage. All the while, in the background, I had my lone hard drive keeping charge of my important data. It too was replaced over time, but always remained an HDD. But in mid-2025, it’s time to hang up its hat. With a new 4TB SSD, I’ve ended the longest reign of any PC component type I’ve ever used. The cost of a large-capacity SSD SSDs are still more expensive than HDDs. Not as dramatically as they once were, but more expensive nonetheless. A 1TB hard drive will cost you around $35 while a 1TB NVMe SSD about $50. A 2TB HDD is around $65 while a 2TB NVMe SSD starts around $90. The 4TB Seagate BarraCuda HDD that I replaced is about $85 new today while you can get something like the 4TB Crucial P3 Plus NVMe SSD for $220 or the 4TB Samsung 990 EVO Plus NVMe SSD for $250. So, yeah, on a GB-for-GB level, the hard drive is far more cost effective. And when you get up into the really big capacities (think 20+ TBs), SSDs don’t even have comparable alternatives at this time. The Biwin Black Opal NV7400 released in 2024 and packs a lot of performance in capacities up to 4TB. Who’s ready for the future?Jon Martindale / Foundry But let’s be real here. How much did you spend on your last graphics card upgrade? How much on your gaming PC as a whole? Is the speed difference between an SSD and HDD really worth $150 or so? Because believe me, while you don’t need cutting-edge performance to store your family photos and video collections, you’ll definitely notice the day-to-day benefit of a (much) faster drive. SSDs aren’t just good at launching games quickly, but also at reading files without lag—no matter what file it is or how many you’re trying to read at once. Don’t sniff at the performance difference When you’re using a computer all day every day, every second matters. It all adds up, especially when it takes forever to launch apps, load files, and transfer data from drive to drive. Who has time to waste? I have tens of thousands of photos from over the years, and my Plex media library chugs I scroll through photos from years ago. It only takes a few seconds here and there, but when it happens every time I load a new page or every time a video buffers, it’s a real pain. Here’s what my Plex media library looks like with an HDD—it takes a while for the thumbnails to load. Not the case with an SSD.Jon Martindale / Foundry After switching over to an SSD, those waits are largely non-existent. It may hitch now and again on spectacularly large files, but the overall experience is smoother and feels more responsive. With an SSD, my library is working at my speed, not the other way around. The same goes for adding new files to the drive, too. Where once backing up my phone with a few thousand images took many minutes, now it’s more like a few seconds. That’s true for backing up in general, too. Where previously I was stuck to the glacial write speed of my hard drive, now I can move entire catalogs of old work documents and other important data over to a new drive near instantaneously. HDDs still last longer… probably Outside of the ever-shrinking cost disparity between hard drives and SSDs, there is one area where hard drives still hold an advantage. I’m talking longevity. Hard drives have been clearly shown to operate for years, or even decades, without data degradation. Backblaze’s annual drive stats paint a strong picture of most HDD models, that they can operate at high capacity for long periods of time without failing. SSDs don’t have the same pedigree, but they can still last a long time before needing to be replaced. The latest models have Terabytes Written (TBW) ratings in the hundreds or even thousands of terabytes, so they can be written to over and over again without fear of diminished drive performance or instability when reading/writing data. In reality, most of us aren’t going to use up that many write cycles. Andrey Matveev / Unsplash And it’s not like HDDs are immune from wear and tear. While conventional wisdom suggests that a hard drive can run for 5 to 10 years with light-to-moderate use, hard drive manufacturers typically only offer warranties of 2 to 3 years. Professional hard drives get about five years—and SSDs get about the same. For most consumers, 3 to 5 years is plenty. There’s one large caveat here, though. When it comes to archiving data, or storing data in a drive that’s powered off for a long time, then hard drives absolutely take the cake. Since SSDs store data electronically rather than magnetically, the data itself can degrade if the SSD isn’t powered on for a long time. Hard drives don’t suffer that issue. If you’re saving data offline in a drawer somewhere, then use a hard drive. Otherwise, you’ll benefit from using an SSD. I’m keeping my hard drive, by the way Main operating system drives? Replace them with SSDs. Secondary storage drives that see day-to-day activity? Make ’em SSDs. Media streaming drives for things like Plex? That’s right. SSDs! They just make the most sense in nearly all scenarios. But that doesn’t mean I’m tossing the HDD I replaced. It doesn’t have to go in the bin just because it’s ageing or slow. A hard drive is the better choice when you need extreme capacities or long-term offline storage, and the latter is what I’m going to use it for. The HDD is handy for a 3-2-1 backup strategy: 3 copies of your data on 2 different media, with 1 of those copies stored remotely off-site. The hard drive forms part of my long-term storage design. So you can live on a little longer, my old hard drive. You’ll be buried even further away from relevance and I hope to never call on you—but if I do, I know you’ll be there to save my butt. Further reading: Why everyone should have a NAS drive Read...

Campaigners say unopened lunches are a small fraction of the programme`s waste problem. Read...

I’ve always loved the idea of VR gaming. It’s a fascinating technology, and there are some experiences that just can’t be had without a VR headset. But VR gaming as an industry is struggling in 2025. Gamers and game developers are largely reliant on Meta’s Quest platform, and Meta is neglecting VR gaming while in pursuit of the metaverse. The only plausible challenger? Valve, who breathed life into the handheld PC gaming space with the Steam Deck. Valve is the only company with enough influence and resources to do the same thing—and if Valve’s long-rumored Deckard headset lives up to its potential, us VR gamers might finally get what we’ve been hoping for so long. The rise (and slide) of VR gaming The Oculus Rift launched over a decade ago in 2012 as the first big consumer VR headset. Oculus was then acquired by Facebook in 2014. Facebook was willing to pour money into VR headsets at the time, which led to the Oculus Quest line of headsets becoming the most popular line of gaming VR headsets—and that still holds today. Meta You can play games right on the headset, or you can plug it into your PC and use it in conjunction with your PC’s graphics card, or even stream VR games wirelessly from your PC to the headset. Meta’s Quest headsets beat the competition, no contest. Microsoft’s line of Windows Mixed Reality headsets are a historical footnote and the HoloLens is dead. Meanwhile, I still roll my eyes at the Apple Vision Pro, which costs $3,499 and can’t even play Beat Saber? No thanks! I’ll stick with the Meta Quest 3S that starts at $299. Keep your overpriced hunk of junk, Apple. Yet while Meta’s headsets are the undisputed leader in market share, Meta is faltering as the de facto steward of VR gaming. The future of VR headsets looks shaky—and it doesn’t help that the hype has shifted from the metaverse to AI. Yep, now it’s not about having a 3D Mark Zuckerberg avatar floating in a void; instead, the future will involve an AI-generated Mark Zuckerberg floating in that same void. Meta is squandering the VR gaming space From what I can tell, Zuckerberg truly was personally excited about virtual reality and “the metaverse” as it was later dubbed. That’s one reason why Facebook (and now Meta) willingly sunk so much money into it. He honestly thought it would be “the next big thing.” But the metaverse hasn’t quite taken off like he hoped, with his thunder stolen by the likes of AI. Is it any wonder why Meta making cuts to its Reality Labs division? Part of the issue is that Meta has mainly pursued “metaverse-style” experiences like Horizon Worlds rather than delivering a robust platform that game developers trust enough to invest in. Many VR game developers are facing declining sales on Meta’s store and struggling to sell enough games to survive. In fact, game developers as a whole are losing faith in VR as a gaming market. 2K Games As Owlchemy Labs CEO Andrew Eiche told UploadVR: “I think [Meta] made a video game console and they want a general computing device.” Other developers, who wished to remain anonymous, made statements like “Meta is not interested in being a gaming platform anymore. They just want to be a metaverse, and they just happen to have a legacy store.” and “It feels a bit like Meta has seen the [Meta Store] data and is keeping it as a legacy option rather than the future of the platform.” All of this points to how Meta is mishandling the Meta Store, where it increasingly prioritizes its “Horizon Worlds” experiences—many of which feel like clones of actual existing games—on its search results pages, pushing down other games and software created by other developers. The future of Meta looks free-to-play and not necessarily about games. With increased competition in VR headsets, from the Apple Vision Pro to Google’s Android XR project and Samsung’s Project Moohan, Meta will probably lean even further away from games. Nobody seems to think there’s any money in VR gaming… and it’s playing out like a self-fulfilling prophecy. VR gaming is dying because it’s being neglected. The VR version of a Steam Deck? The Valve Index VR headset came out in 2019 with a price tag of $999, and it had to be tethered to a PC. It was really good for the time, and with it Valve proved that they had what it takes to deliver high-quality VR gaming hardware. Later, with Half-Life: Alyx, Valve proved that they could deliver high-quality VR games, too. (The Lab is another fun Valve VR experience that was impressive back in 2016 when it launched.) Valve But Valve hasn’t made any moves in VR since then. Instead, we got the Steam Deck, which transformed the handheld gaming space. The Steam Deck isn’t just awesome hardware—it runs the Linux-based SteamOS operating system with excellent compatibility with Windows games. That’s a massive accomplishment that isn’t talked about enough. The Steam Deck was also impressive because Valve delivered something people actually wanted. Microsoft never really cared about the handheld gaming experience on Windows PCs until Valve started eating into its market share with the Steam Deck. Valve lit a fire under Microsoft’s seat, and the latter now appears to be getting a little more serious (even if Windows-based handhelds are still pretty lackluster). That’s the same kind of innovative fire that we need in the VR gaming space. With Meta dropping the ball, could Valve take it and run? How Valve could save VR gaming with the rumored Deckard headset Valve’s Project Deckard has been the stuff of online rumors for a long time, but those rumors have ramped up recently. Earlier this year, a leaker claimed that Project Deckard may be on the way by end of 2025. I don’t want to get lost in too much speculation, but here’s the picture that’s emerging: a high-end VR headset made for gaming, one that can be completely standalone just like a Meta Quest headset so you can play without plugging into a PC. It’s extremely compelling. And the reason it’s compelling? Not only did Valve prove themselves with the Index, and not only did Valve make enormous waves with the Steam Deck, but Valve cares about gaming in a way that Facebook—the company that once flooded social feeds with FarmVille—doesn’t. These are the patent drawings for Valve’s Project Deckard, filed in December 2021 and published with patent number US-20220187609-A1.Joel Lee / Foundry Valve also has Steam, which is a huge asset. In a world where VR game developers say they’re facing sliding game sales on the Meta Store, and in a world where so many interesting VR games just aren’t getting made because the future looks grim, Valve could revitalize it all if they made a concerted push for VR games on Steam—complete with a Steam Deck-style “you don’t need any other hardware, just buy this one device” experience. You know, the thing that made Quest headsets so good. Hardware aside, this could unleash a new wave of interesting VR games and revive the industry, or at least keep it going as a sustainable platform for geeks like myself who find it pretty cool. Just like handheld gaming PCs before the Steam Deck, gaming VR headsets are being largely ignored by companies. Valve has a massive opportunity here. We don’t really know, though. Valve is almost certainly experimenting with a variety of products in house, and the company hasn’t actually announced anything official about Project Deckard. But I hope they do! The VR gaming industry needs something like this, and Valve is the most credible company that could deliver results. I like VR gaming, not the metaverse Many people still aren’t interested in virtual reality. I get it. I don’t want to wear a VR headset for extended periods of time, and I don’t want to live in the metaverse. I’ll happily play AAA games like Doom: The Dark Ages on my gaming PC, and I certainly don’t want to work while wearing a VR headset, even though Windows 11 now supports that. But I do think VR gaming is cool. There’s nothing quite like Beat Saber. It takes me back to the Dance Dance Revolution craze from my teenage years! There’s something special about VR as a gaming technology even if the technology isn’t quite there yet. So I hope Valve picks up the ball and runs with it—someone definitely needs to. Read...

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham warns the strike will continue for `as long as it takes`. Read...

Buying a Microsoft Surface Pro tablet without a pen or keyboard is like buying a Mercedes without wheels. The engine runs just fine, and the seats are as luxurious as you could imagine. But wouldn’t you feel cheated if you couldn’t go anywhere? Most of the 16 iterations of the Surface Pro adopt the same double standard: the Surface Pro is a laptop, except when Microsoft starts talking price. Then, poof! It’s a tablet. Only as you move step by step through the buying process does Microsoft reveal that, yes, the pen and keyboard — and now the charger! — all cost extra. Ridiculous. Unfortunately, we’ve come to accept this behavior. Microsoft seems to think that after deciding upon a $2,000 Surface laptop, you might shrug your shoulders and accept a few hundred dollars more. Why not? You’re already hooked. But Microsoft’s new 12-inch, $799 Surface Pro changes things. We’re not talking about a premium device. Instead, Microsoft’s Surface Pro page walks you through the experience: typing, inking, doing everything a clamshell laptop can do — all with the pen and keyboard shown prominently throughout. And if you want a charger? All those extras total over $300, which on a $799 device feels insane, sleazy, and borderline illegal. Surface Pro, with keyboard and pen: $799.99? Right? Right?Foundry Visually, the Surface Pro keyboard and pen are everywhere On Microsoft’s Surface Pro page, the top illustration shows two Surface Pros, each with a keyboard and pen. Scroll down: Yep, there’s another. Keep going and you’ll see more photos of Microsoft’s Surface Pro with a keyboard and/or a pen than as a stand-alone tablet. At no time do I see any indication that the keyboard or pen are optional. The language implies that they’re all part of the same holistic solution. Looks pretty clear to me: A Surface Pro equals a tablet plus a pen plus a keyboard.Foundry “Reimagined with a smooth-matte palm rest, sturdy wedge design, and dynamic hinge, Surface Pro is great for typing anywhere, even on your lap,” Microsoft says. Underneath a description of the “incredible typing experience,” Microsoft says: “Work anywhere with better typing and 360° rotation. The new 12-inch Surface Pro is durable, easy to clean, and ideal for travel or the coffee shop.” Sounds great. How much is it? “Starting from $799.99,” Microsoft says. Want to buy a Surface Pro? This is what you’ll see when you begin.Foundry Buying a Surface Pro means selecting a size, configuration, and color. It’s here that you first learn that no, no charger is included. That’s $70 extra. (Microsoft’s lawyers may hold up their hands and say that the first photo you see on the 12-inch Surface Pro page is of just the tablet itself. But at the bottom of the column of images is, yes, a Surface Pro with a keyboard and pen attached.) On the second page? Time to buy a Microsoft 365 subscription. Only on the third page do you learn that a keyboard is $150, and a keyboard and pen bundled together is $250. Then it’s time to check out, feeling at least a little irritated that Microsoft didn’t tell you about all of this at the beginning. Buying an “accessory” like the pen and keyboard is left until the end.Foundry Does this feel fair to you? It just feels like Microsoft is trying to have it both ways. Every laptop ships with an integrated keyboard. Microsoft’s Surface Pro is advertised on Microsoft’s page as having “tablet-to-laptop flexibility,” whatever that means. Visually, Microsoft is telling you: Yes, you’ll want a keyboard and pen. Then there’s the name. Should Microsoft refer to these as “Pro” tablets, without the accessories that professionals use? I don’t think so. Calling just the tablet a “Surface,” with an upgrade to a “Surface Pro” that adds a pen and keyboard, feels closer to what the reality should be. Even the Trump Administration — which most Americans would consider “business friendly” — has actually implemented a new FTC rule prohibiting bait-and-switch pricing. That’s predicated upon an executive order, signed by Trump himself. The review version of the Surface Pro Microsoft sent includes a keyboard and pen. And it should!Mattias Inghe As the FTC puts it: “[the order] requires that businesses that advertise prices tell consumers the whole truth up-front about total prices and fees.” A supplementary page describes how the order protects general “business-to-business transactions” beyond just tickets and short-term lodging. To me, tacking on additional charges for a pen and keyboard feels like a hotel’s $100 daily “resort fee,” or the discovery that you’ll have to pay extra for an airline meal or to pick your seat. Nothing about any of this feels “up front.” The point isn’t that Microsoft is actually violating FTC regulations. But the company is certainly pushing up against the bounds of good behavior. Just not acceptable in a low- to mid-range device To be fair, other Windows tablets don’t consistently include their accessories, either. Lenovo’s ThinkPad X12 Gen 2 bundles the keyboard and pen. Dell’s Latitude 7350 Detachable does not. The Asus ProArt PZ13 includes a a keyboard, but no pen. Heck, many all-in-one desktops toss in a mouse and keyboard. Note that the photos of the Dell Latitude 7350 don’t include the keyboard, which feels more authentic. But give Dell credit: its Latitude 7350 Detachable product page doesn’t even show a keyboard, which it calls “optional.” That feels more like an honest sale. Microsoft’s stance feels especially pernicious because there are already extra back-end tariff fees tacked on to the purchase price — or not, depending upon the whims of the President. You still really don’t know under what tariff regulation anything you buy will fall under, which already makes consumers cautious. That’s what makes a $799 Surface Pro appealing. Finally, a reasonable price tag! Only it’s not. When you add up all of the additional “options” — a $69.99 charger, plus $250 for a bundled keyboard and pen — that’s an additional $319.99 surcharge, or 40 percent of the purchase price right there. And that’s even without the $129.99 per year that Microsoft charges for a Microsoft 365 Family subscription. That’s outrageous, unfair, and maybe illegal. This isn’t nickel-and-diming you. That’s a big fat pile of money that could be put toward other things. You would think that Microsoft would at least explain its actions. So far, my questions have been ignored. I don’t think they should be ignored. I think Microsoft’s Surface Pro pricing strategy should be explained, reconsidered, and ultimately changed. Read...

A review by the shadow attorney general will examine whether the UK should exit certain domestic and international agreements. Read...

The moderator in the talks is former New Zealand governor-general Sir Jerry Mateparae. Read...

Three Chinese tourists were injured when their bus crashed on Mossburn Five Rivers Rd on Wednesday, one of whom was taken to hospital in a serious condition. Read...