Originally Posted by minderbinder
You're defining "basic hardware" to be a radio and heater. I consider it the ability to seat four people. Your analogy that any car/truck meets mainstream needs while the air doesn't, doesn't hold up.
Sure it does because you are using an artificial requirement. In America the average commuter to work is the sole occupant of the vehicle he is in.
Well I guess since I'm included in "everyone" I've already proven that wrong. People said the same about floppy disks, and yet here we are.
Sure they did but that doesn't make Apple right every time.
Your opinion, the fact that so many have put forth being impressed by the form factor seems to discount your guess of what "most people" think. And people do make notebook buying decisions based on size and weight.
It may impress people on its own or as a selling point but when sitting right next to the Mac Book in the Apple store the size feature isn't all that impressive. Sure it weighs less and that is a reason to buy but its physical size just isn't a compelling argument.
Acknowledge that smaller and ligher is an advantage. You've already made it perfectly clear that you don't find value in that advantage, or consider it worth the tradeoffs, at least you could admit the advantage exists.
Sure if it had this advantage but honestly it only has half of what you are claiming.
That's true in the case of a chip, but people aren't buying an individual chip. They're buying a computer, which includes many parts including keyboard, display, IO, storage, cooling, power, etc. Until someone can figure out how to put the monitor and keyboard (and everything else) on a chip, putting together a laptop has design constraints that mean smaller=more expensive.
What a fancy fan for the CPU? Take a look at the on line photos, the RAM array looks like any other RAM array. This is what bugs the hell out of me, that is the claim that there is a huge step forward in the design here. Except for the CPU and fan it looks like standard off the shelf parts to me.
You just provided your own rebuttal. The Eee has a fraction of the memory, drive space (flash), performance, and a seven inch screen. If anything, it shows that you have to cut corners in a huge way to get drastic size and weight reductions.
Err no it shows that you can cram a lot of technology, using laptop type parts into a very small box. In many ways more than what we see in the AIR. It comes back to the idea that has been expressed that the AIR is a great advancement in electronics technology. I just don't buy it. Maybe a better review will change my mind but I will stick to my claim until then that the AIR is a very cheap machine to produce.
If it's really so easy to make a comparable machine for hundreds less (and add ports and other stuff in the process), why isn't some other company doing it? Why not?
I don't really know, but address the issue of the ASUS Eee PC why is it that such machine where so high priced until ASUS came out with their machine? It isn't because of vastly different technology.
If they don't have to be, then why are they expensive? If it was possible to sell an ultraportable for way cheaper, why doesn't some company do it and sell a boatload?
Well here we play a classification game because I don't consider the AIR to be an ultra portable. It is a light weight laptop, I think most would agree on that.
I will roll around back to the ASUS Eee PC and that class of machine. ASUS is certainly selling boatloads there and it would be considered an ultra portable or maybe a sub portable. Again an issue of classification. The point is ASUS clean up against the competition and did so on a very low cost machine.
The cube was released in 2000. The apple hifi was another apple flop, and the aTV is a question mark with the new software update. When you look at what the company has done right since 2000, is "making the same mistakes over and over again" really the best way to describe the situation?
Well if you see a common theme then yes. That is a situation where design all of a sudden outweighs functionality. That is not saying that design isn't important as it has kept Apple alive through some really tough times. It just that I see a machine that was designed to be very portable and at the same time missing things that I would think the man on the go might want.
One example would be dirt simple VoIP that doesn't involve Bluetooth. Something that could have been added to the very hardware we have now with no changes at all to the physical machine by simply using iPhone headsets. All one would need is a different jack hooked up to the analog in that is likely already on the motherboard someplace.
You see sometimes I think people are getting the wrong impression, it is not like I don't like the AIR's design. There are certainly good points to be had there. What just blows my mind are the trade offs that where made, some of which have no logical explanation. That and the price for what you get.