They've kind of killed this whole angle of "Surface is for getting work done" after they hedged by releasing Office on iPad.
It's funny, because it used to be that everything Microsoft did was in furtherance of the 'Windows über alles' philosophy, that Microsoft can only win if everyone else loses. Within that philosophy, though, there was no direction. You drank the kool-aid, and then your team just did whatever; see the famous example of the Office manager hating the idea of tablet PCs and refusing to support them in Office. Everyone was working towards the same goal (the Windows hegemony) but doing so in a disorganized fashion.
Now, it seems like Microsoft's new direction is 'stay relevant and make good things'; everyone is working in the same fashion (make new, relevant technology), but there's a lack of coherence. Microsoft making such a fantastic iPad app as Office for iPad is certainly weakens Office on Windows, Surface, Windows 8 RT, etc., but it also means that Microsoft will still be relevant even if any one of those fails. Likewise, it makes no sense for them to make a version of Office for Mac and (intentionally) cripple its compatibility to hurt the Mac's image.
Now that users aren't (and can't be) forced to use Office on Windows, the Office team needs to keep their product relevant and their revenues flowing; that means covering as many platforms as possible, and ensuring proper interoperability between them.
Basically, the Office team's job now is to ensure that Office survives, not to ensure that Windows 8 or the Surface survive.
Edit: Close enough, dragonwriter. I yield the point. (I should have known about this. Also, why is there such a lack of optimized pad sized apps for Android? The phone ones I've seen weren't exactly using the screen area well.)
There's a phone version for Android 4.0+, but not yet a tablet version.
Interestingly, Google has all its products out for the desktop version on Windows 8.
Comparing Windows 8.x's desktop marketshare with Windows Phone's mobile marketshare might give a clue as to the reason why Google has apps for the former but not the latter.
Some might call it Microsoft reaping what they have sown for years and I've even heard people applaud Google for shutting out Microsoft, but when MS is putting tons of apps on the Android store and Google is blocking Microsoft from even getting to their website, from a user standpoint I have to be pissed at Google regardless of what Microsoft has done. It's petty, it's anti-consumer just like mid-90's Microsoft, and it's certainly not "do no evil".
[1] http://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/
I suspect because Android has had significant smartphone marketshare for longer and only comparatively recently bumped over iOS in tablet marketshare, so developers targetting Android have been largely targetting it for phone apps. Fragmentation and demographics probably still make iOS much more lucrative for tablet apps (as it still is, AFAIK, for smartphone apps), but the marketshare numbers are such that the lack of tablet apps for Android should start resolving itself, the same way the lack of phone apps did.
A large part of the Android tablets sold are low end models with bad screens, used for Point of Sale (in taxis etc) or minimal web browsing. Not generally used much per day. (Afaik, statistics for web site access generally support that.)
For me it's more of a light laptop then a limited tablet device.
The problem with this logic is that if I'm going to buy new apps all over again, why wouldn't I buy an iPad, which has more apps and an easier interface than Windows RT, which is essentially nothing like the Windows I'm used to. If I have to re-learn a new system, why wouldn't I pick the one that everyone else uses and knows than the new one that no one else really cares about or understands (and which everyone hated when it came out).
The real key now is Universal apps; if you can build one app that works on Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Pro (and maybe the XBone in some cases), then we're going to see the potential for a huge increase in apps as people start realizing they can hit all three markets with 'one' build (and three UIs).
For example, you cannot do programming on the go, without being connected to a server that handles your development tasks.
So the surface has to be better than the MacBook Air for work, or better than an iPad as a tablet.
Otherwise it's just a compromise that is worse at both.
[edit: the downvotes are pretty indicative of the nature of this thread given that all I've done is ask valid questions to which I don't know the answer]
With a Surface, I can go full developer mode in the desktop, while making use of, if you prefer, the old style applications.
I can detach the keyboard, switch the Metro (Modern) mode and make use of the tablet as a digital notebook thanks to pen input and handwriting recognition.
Finally, I can go put the pen aside and just use touch input.
And the ability to have a docking station made specifically for the Surface is the cherry on the top of the cake.
With a Mac Book Air, I am stuck on the classical desktop mode.
The question is - does it do any of those things better than the competition.
When in "classical desktop mode" it needs to be better than the MacBook Air, otherwise for most work it will be a worse experience regardless of whether it could at any time transform into a tablet.
On my (employer) corporate Win7 laptop, the virus checker sometimes lights up the hard drive continuously, making the IDE almost unusable on it. My tablet feels pretty damn snappy.