Out of curiosity, are there *any* Windows laptops that satisfy the following conditions?
+ Gorilla glass rather than film display surface
+ Quad-HD display resolution
+ 400 nit brightness screen
+ Sub-$400 street price
+ All metal rather than plastic body
+ 12" or larger display
+ touchscreen display
Figure $60 comes right off the top for a Windows license in the COG of any Windows laptop. That puts any possible Windows laptop build ~$60 in the hole as compared to alternatives using free OSes. I think it is hard to build anything but crummy hardware if you want both a low price (sub-$400) and the Windows OS.
The only device I have that comes close to these specs is a Surface 3 tablet with keyboard. It fails in a couple of the above criteria though.
First, the display is only 10.8", but it is glass.
Second, when you add the keyboard, the price goes well over the $400 mark
Third, the display resolution, while decent, is NOT Quad-HD.
What you get, though, is a tablet-laptop hybrid in all glass and metal with real Windows 10 and an (optional $130 keyboard; note that you can get a very good 11.6" Samsung Chromebook 3, complete, for about $160 - approximately the cost of the Microsoft keyboard cover), for laptop replacement use. All in you're looking at $480 street price for a lowly spec'ed model. The other "neg" is that unlike laptops which can be supported by the keyboard, this is a flimsy plastic keyboard that does not support the tablet, meaning you really can't use it on your lap as a laptop.
So when used as a portal to the digital cyberverse, you'll get a better quality laptop access point (better, larger visual experience, better tactile interaction, etc.) with a new generation Chromebook than even the best built low end Windows laptops. That, after all, was the original vision of the Chromebook - affordable and pleasing access to the internet. Adding mobile app capability merely sweetens the deal.
Microsoft was terrified of Chromebooks when they first launched. So much so that they concocted a gutted version of Windows OS specifically intended for devices called Windows RT. The idea was to defend against ChromeOS and mobile OSes with an OS that cost manufacturers less to license, but likewise didn't cannibalize its higher end client OS near monopoly by being unable to run most business-y windows apps. It was an epic failure; a disaster in fact, and inevitably Microsoft's OS license revenue will start to suffer as mobile OSes enter the business application laptop space.
Microsoft has switched gears, porting its office apps to third party mobile OSes. Intel, too, sees where the long game in going and is scrambling to diversify OUT of client CPUs. It's own mobile device chip business, like Windows RT, has been an epic disaster - not even close to the performance levels of Qualcomm, Apple, Samsung and other phone CPUs. Intel is now building its line of defense in the data center (i.e., powering the Cloud rather than relying on putting chips in client devices). GPU maker, nVidia, is becoming Intel's greatest data-center threat. For many Cloud workloads GPU architecture is more optimal than x86 CPU architecture.
The direction of technology says that the old world is dying and the main monopolists in that old world are behaving in a manner that says they concur that the old world is dying. I wouldn't get too attached to that old world, personally.