This is a grim omen... Have Windows PC manufacturers painted themselves into a shitty, low-margin unsatisfying corner where their main competitor innovates, generates high customer satisfaction and walks away with the lion's share of the industry's profits?
What *is* grim to me is that these Windows PC manufacturers all have high mindshare and marketshare among the regular Joes. They're not losing money either, margins are thin but they are actually making money.
It's the obsession with growth. Big business is freaking out about growth, more so than usual. Youtube "Money As Debt". By nature remember 3% growth each year is not a straight-line but an exponential curve. There is a panic spreading among big business particularly in light of the US and European financial crisis and it's causing all sorts of irrational thinking and half-baked rubbish rushed to market.
They hope component prices will come down... specifically SSDs and next-gen Intel processors, and probably displays to a lesser extent.
I don't think ultrabooks will sell in large volume. The average selling price of a PC is under $700, and without a low-end model that cheap, they're doomed to a niche market. The only non-Apple computers that can command high prices are extremely powerful machines like high-end workstations and gaming rigs.
Sure, but component pricing will come down for everybody, including Apple.
So next year, they'll be able to make a $1000 MacBookAir clone [as they don't seem to be able to do so now and still make any kind of profit, let alone the kind of profit Apple makes]. Next years MacBookAir for $1000 will still be better. Maybe several years from now they can make a something like a MacBookAir that's cheaper than Apple [same form factor, cheaper components], but it'll still be fat profits for Intel and Microsoft, not much for anybody else [other than Apple].
You mentioned nothing about competitors and their tablet pricing. Apple released a premium-priced tablet.
Apple released a premium tablet but during the same announcement said they had priced it aggressively. Obviously they succeeded because no company has been competitive with the iPad yet.
lol I have yet to see anything using thunderbolt at a retail store... I think its worst than firewire was.
And you won't see it until Q1 at best or more likely Q2 2012. Apple had a headstart by working with Intel to develop TB and it will take that long for the competition to release computers with TB included.
Sure, but component pricing will come down for everybody, including Apple.
So next year, they'll be able to make a $1000 MacBookAir clone [as they don't seem to be able to do so now and still make any kind of profit, let alone the kind of profit Apple makes]. Next years MacBookAir for $1000 will still be better. Maybe several years from now they can make a something like a MacBookAir that's cheaper than Apple [same form factor, cheaper components], but it'll still be fat profits for Intel and Microsoft, not much for anybody else [other than Apple].
There are several vendors that are releasing Ultrabooks starting at the $1000 price point. These are even the 13" models, not the 11" model Apple sells for $999, so they are getting a leg up with Intel's help. That doesn't guarantee they will be successful or profitable per unit at this point, but they are getting competitive.
There are several vendors that are releasing Ultrabooks starting at the $1000 price point. These are even the 13" models, not the 11" model Apple sells for $999, so they are getting a leg up with Intel's help. That doesn't guarantee they will be successful or profitable per unit at this point, but they are getting competitive.
They would increase their competitiveness if they make their machine hardware compatible with Mac Air. At least just use the same major hardwares. That should attract the hackintosh crowd.
They would increase their competitiveness if they make their machine hardware compatible with Mac Air. At least just use the same major hardwares. That should attract the hackintosh crowd.
They are using the same basic ULV/LV CPU architecture, a milled aluminium chassis, chicklet keyboard and large glass trackpad. Remember when all these things were deemed pointless features, over-engineering and/or or bad features? I do.
They would increase their competitiveness if they make their machine hardware compatible with Mac Air. At least just use the same major hardwares. That should attract the hackintosh crowd.
That is only the screen size though. I don't think people will even be remotely hyped until these companies release some solid specs. For example, I've read reviews on the new Acer Ultrabook and I can't find any specs other than "it may use Intels ULV i3, i5 or i7 processor" which is fine and dandy but "may use" is not good enough. Plus there is apparently build quality concerns on the acer (flexing with the case, particularly the monitor).
So they are either cutting costs to make more profit or cutting costs to actually make a profit. I have high hopes for the Toshiba Ultra book though - its ugly as sin but I've always liked Toshiba's build quality and spec sheets.
They are using the same basic ULV/LV CPU architecture, a milled aluminium chassis, chicklet keyboard and large glass trackpad. Remember when all these things were deemed pointless features, over-engineering and/or or bad features? I do.
This is the problem. They are all following one ultrabook specification, so all these manufacturers will be putting out the same product with the same insides at different price points with slightly varying case designs. At the end of the day, buyers are all going to turn around and go "if they are all the same price and the same specs, why not get an Apple and enjoy the premium market brand?"
Not even released yet and the PC makers are commoditising the market already.
First of all, this reflects the basic fact that the Windows PC market isn't really receptive to this category. Dell's Adamo was a commercial failure and PC manufacturers are well aware of that.
Secondly, these PC manufacturers are probably wary of another TouchPad debacle. HP cancelled their media tablet shortly after launch, sold off channel inventory at liquidation prices, then apparently had their manufacturing partners build more units to soak up parts already committed in various supply contracts.
Lastly, there are no volume discounts for such small production runs. They aren't releasing millions of MacBook Airs. Apple has benefited from leveraging their iDevice supply chain mastery to Mac production. Most Windows PC manufacturers have no significant smartphone/media tablet business and can't reap the benefits of massive contracts for things like NAND flash memory and LCD panels.
Frankly, I'm not sure if PC buyers will make this a viable category. It may end up being like the iPad/non-iPad conundrum where buyers will pay a thousand bucks for a MacBook Air, but won't pay more than five hundred or six for a similar Windows PC. The HP TouchPad showed that the marketplace accepts the iPad at one price point and everything else is devalued.
This looks like another PC Bataan Death March, a gruesome drive to the bottom. Someone should be able to compete with Apple's MacBook Air, but it will be with razor thin margins. We already know that Windows PC users rate lower than Mac users in terms of customer satisfaction. Apparently paying the "Apple tax" isn't such a hindrance to user satisfaction.
At this point one must ask the question, "If saving money is such a big deal why aren't Windows PC users happier?" Acer's management apparently took a deep look, fired their CEO, and basically admitted that their whole low-margin/we'll-make-it-up-on-volume business model was crap and a poor return on investment for their shareholders.
Have Windows PC manufacturers painted themselves into a shitty, low-margin unsatisfying corner where their main competitor innovates, generates high customer satisfaction and walks away with the lion's share of the industry's profits?
This has be to be the best comment I have read on this forum. Nice Work.
This is the problem. They are all following one ultrabook specification, so all these manufacturers will be putting out the same product with the same insides at different price points with slightly varying case designs. At the end of the day, buyers are all going to turn around and go "if they are all the same price and the same specs, why not get an Apple and enjoy the premium market brand?"
Not even released yet and the PC makers are commoditising the market already.
True, and that will lead to the same fight for the bottom that is seen with Windows and Android vendors, but I don't see another option for them if they are going to compete with Apple's economy of scale. Intel needs them to use their ULV/LV Core chips and they needed someone with deeper pockets to create the R&D and lower costs so they can compete with Apple.
With any luck the prices will come down another couple hundred in 2 years getting it close to the average selling price of a Windows 'PC". Then these could be a huge success.
So the question is: Are they in a better or worse position before Intel gave them a hand?
True, and that will lead to the same fight for the bottom that is seen with Windows and Android vendors, but I don't see another option for them if they are going to compete with Apple's economy of scale. Intel needs them to use their ULV/LV Core chips and they needed someone with deeper pockets to create the R&D and lower costs so they can compete with Apple.
With any luck the prices will come down another couple hundred in 2 years getting it close to the average selling price of a Windows 'PC". Then these could be a huge success.
So the question is: Are they in a better or worse position before Intel gave them a hand?
They make very little profit on the Ultrabooks (or "will make very little" since they have not been released yet). In two years if they are still trying to race to the bottom of the bargain bucket whilst incorporating new technologies into their products, we could see many brands dropping ultrabooks, making cost cutting measure in quality/feature set or raising the prices - either way, Apple laughs all the way to the bank with their supply chain. I want competition to keep Apple on their toes but the competition seems to have dug a rather deep grave.
They make very little profit on the Ultrabooks (or "will make very little" since they have not been released yet). In two years if they are still trying to race to the bottom of the bargain bucket whilst incorporating new technologies into their products, we could see many brands dropping ultrabooks, making cost cutting measure in quality/feature set or raising the prices - either way, Apple laughs all the way to the bank with their supply chain. I want competition to keep Apple on their toes but the competition seems to have dug a rather deep grave.
I see this as Intel dangling a poisoned Apple in front of these other vendors telling they'll be able to compete better, but the whole point is to increase Intel's ULV/LV Core processor sales so they can invest more R&D into getting the performance up and the power usage down to appease Apple's demands.
From my understanding, the OEMs asked for even further discounts to which Intel said, "Hell no!" I think that Intel wants the OEMs to move away from the race to the bottom for their own good (HP anyone?) and also to stave off any thoughts of moving to ARM since Microsoft is now porting Windows 8 to ARM.
Exactly. This is mostly about ARM, not Apple.
Intel isn't trying to directly compete with Apple so the Ultrabook isn't a "response" to Apple.
It's kind of like if a kid taking an exam for a teacher, and the kid steals the answer sheet.
In this analogy Intel would be the kid, Apple is the teacher and the Macbook Air is the answer sheet
It's not just about Intel getting all the OEMs behind Intel reference designs in order to increase the economies of scale on their low voltage processors and chipsets as Solipsism mentioned above (although that is a huge part of it).
It's also about trying to shift the way the PC industry works. At the moment they favor configurable designs and off-the-shelf components which are used to support their plethora of model variations. This makes something like the MacBook Air with its appliance-like custom components and design impossible to make.
Also (perhaps even more importantly) it makes something like a x86 based tablet impossible to make.
I see this as Intel dangling a poisoned Apple in front of these other vendors telling they'll be able to compete better, but the whole point is to increase Intel's ULV/LV Core processor sales so they can invest more R&D into getting the performance up and the power usage down to appease Apple's demands.
But it will never go down enough to be in an Apple tablet by early 2013. Not the way things are looking. By then ARM will have the same horsepower of whatever Intel "scales down" to.
And Intel graphics will still be rubbish and PowerVR will continue to eat their lunch in the phone and tablet space. Intel still doesn't have a clue about how to make a decent GPU, let alone a mobile/tablet one. If the rumours(?) are to be believed PowerVR already has DX10.1/OpenGL3-capable GPUs... Man, I keep saying it but Apple is sooo close to busting out an iPad3 that will easily match the PS3 in terms of gaming capability. And that means iPhone, iPad, AppleTV that takes on all the "hardcore" gaming consoles in 2012 or 2013 at the very, very latest.
Comments
This is a grim omen... Have Windows PC manufacturers painted themselves into a shitty, low-margin unsatisfying corner where their main competitor innovates, generates high customer satisfaction and walks away with the lion's share of the industry's profits?
What *is* grim to me is that these Windows PC manufacturers all have high mindshare and marketshare among the regular Joes. They're not losing money either, margins are thin but they are actually making money.
It's the obsession with growth. Big business is freaking out about growth, more so than usual. Youtube "Money As Debt". By nature remember 3% growth each year is not a straight-line but an exponential curve. There is a panic spreading among big business particularly in light of the US and European financial crisis and it's causing all sorts of irrational thinking and half-baked rubbish rushed to market.
They hope component prices will come down... specifically SSDs and next-gen Intel processors, and probably displays to a lesser extent.
I don't think ultrabooks will sell in large volume. The average selling price of a PC is under $700, and without a low-end model that cheap, they're doomed to a niche market. The only non-Apple computers that can command high prices are extremely powerful machines like high-end workstations and gaming rigs.
Sure, but component pricing will come down for everybody, including Apple.
So next year, they'll be able to make a $1000 MacBookAir clone [as they don't seem to be able to do so now and still make any kind of profit, let alone the kind of profit Apple makes]. Next years MacBookAir for $1000 will still be better. Maybe several years from now they can make a something like a MacBookAir that's cheaper than Apple [same form factor, cheaper components], but it'll still be fat profits for Intel and Microsoft, not much for anybody else [other than Apple].
You mentioned nothing about competitors and their tablet pricing. Apple released a premium-priced tablet.
Apple released a premium tablet but during the same announcement said they had priced it aggressively. Obviously they succeeded because no company has been competitive with the iPad yet.
lol I have yet to see anything using thunderbolt at a retail store... I think its worst than firewire was.
And you won't see it until Q1 at best or more likely Q2 2012. Apple had a headstart by working with Intel to develop TB and it will take that long for the competition to release computers with TB included.
Sure, but component pricing will come down for everybody, including Apple.
So next year, they'll be able to make a $1000 MacBookAir clone [as they don't seem to be able to do so now and still make any kind of profit, let alone the kind of profit Apple makes]. Next years MacBookAir for $1000 will still be better. Maybe several years from now they can make a something like a MacBookAir that's cheaper than Apple [same form factor, cheaper components], but it'll still be fat profits for Intel and Microsoft, not much for anybody else [other than Apple].
There are several vendors that are releasing Ultrabooks starting at the $1000 price point. These are even the 13" models, not the 11" model Apple sells for $999, so they are getting a leg up with Intel's help. That doesn't guarantee they will be successful or profitable per unit at this point, but they are getting competitive.
There are several vendors that are releasing Ultrabooks starting at the $1000 price point. These are even the 13" models, not the 11" model Apple sells for $999, so they are getting a leg up with Intel's help. That doesn't guarantee they will be successful or profitable per unit at this point, but they are getting competitive.
They would increase their competitiveness if they make their machine hardware compatible with Mac Air. At least just use the same major hardwares. That should attract the hackintosh crowd.
They would increase their competitiveness if they make their machine hardware compatible with Mac Air. At least just use the same major hardwares. That should attract the hackintosh crowd.
They are using the same basic ULV/LV CPU architecture, a milled aluminium chassis, chicklet keyboard and large glass trackpad. Remember when all these things were deemed pointless features, over-engineering and/or or bad features? I do.
They would increase their competitiveness if they make their machine hardware compatible with Mac Air. At least just use the same major hardwares. That should attract the hackintosh crowd.
That is only the screen size though. I don't think people will even be remotely hyped until these companies release some solid specs. For example, I've read reviews on the new Acer Ultrabook and I can't find any specs other than "it may use Intels ULV i3, i5 or i7 processor" which is fine and dandy but "may use" is not good enough. Plus there is apparently build quality concerns on the acer (flexing with the case, particularly the monitor).
So they are either cutting costs to make more profit or cutting costs to actually make a profit. I have high hopes for the Toshiba Ultra book though - its ugly as sin but I've always liked Toshiba's build quality and spec sheets.
Time will tell, eh?
They are using the same basic ULV/LV CPU architecture, a milled aluminium chassis, chicklet keyboard and large glass trackpad. Remember when all these things were deemed pointless features, over-engineering and/or or bad features? I do.
This is the problem. They are all following one ultrabook specification, so all these manufacturers will be putting out the same product with the same insides at different price points with slightly varying case designs. At the end of the day, buyers are all going to turn around and go "if they are all the same price and the same specs, why not get an Apple and enjoy the premium market brand?"
Not even released yet and the PC makers are commoditising the market already.
This is a grim omen.
First of all, this reflects the basic fact that the Windows PC market isn't really receptive to this category. Dell's Adamo was a commercial failure and PC manufacturers are well aware of that.
Secondly, these PC manufacturers are probably wary of another TouchPad debacle. HP cancelled their media tablet shortly after launch, sold off channel inventory at liquidation prices, then apparently had their manufacturing partners build more units to soak up parts already committed in various supply contracts.
Lastly, there are no volume discounts for such small production runs. They aren't releasing millions of MacBook Airs. Apple has benefited from leveraging their iDevice supply chain mastery to Mac production. Most Windows PC manufacturers have no significant smartphone/media tablet business and can't reap the benefits of massive contracts for things like NAND flash memory and LCD panels.
Frankly, I'm not sure if PC buyers will make this a viable category. It may end up being like the iPad/non-iPad conundrum where buyers will pay a thousand bucks for a MacBook Air, but won't pay more than five hundred or six for a similar Windows PC. The HP TouchPad showed that the marketplace accepts the iPad at one price point and everything else is devalued.
This looks like another PC Bataan Death March, a gruesome drive to the bottom. Someone should be able to compete with Apple's MacBook Air, but it will be with razor thin margins. We already know that Windows PC users rate lower than Mac users in terms of customer satisfaction. Apparently paying the "Apple tax" isn't such a hindrance to user satisfaction.
At this point one must ask the question, "If saving money is such a big deal why aren't Windows PC users happier?" Acer's management apparently took a deep look, fired their CEO, and basically admitted that their whole low-margin/we'll-make-it-up-on-volume business model was crap and a poor return on investment for their shareholders.
Have Windows PC manufacturers painted themselves into a shitty, low-margin unsatisfying corner where their main competitor innovates, generates high customer satisfaction and walks away with the lion's share of the industry's profits?
This has be to be the best comment I have read on this forum. Nice Work.
This is the problem. They are all following one ultrabook specification, so all these manufacturers will be putting out the same product with the same insides at different price points with slightly varying case designs. At the end of the day, buyers are all going to turn around and go "if they are all the same price and the same specs, why not get an Apple and enjoy the premium market brand?"
Not even released yet and the PC makers are commoditising the market already.
True, and that will lead to the same fight for the bottom that is seen with Windows and Android vendors, but I don't see another option for them if they are going to compete with Apple's economy of scale. Intel needs them to use their ULV/LV Core chips and they needed someone with deeper pockets to create the R&D and lower costs so they can compete with Apple.
With any luck the prices will come down another couple hundred in 2 years getting it close to the average selling price of a Windows 'PC". Then these could be a huge success.
So the question is: Are they in a better or worse position before Intel gave them a hand?
True, and that will lead to the same fight for the bottom that is seen with Windows and Android vendors, but I don't see another option for them if they are going to compete with Apple's economy of scale. Intel needs them to use their ULV/LV Core chips and they needed someone with deeper pockets to create the R&D and lower costs so they can compete with Apple.
With any luck the prices will come down another couple hundred in 2 years getting it close to the average selling price of a Windows 'PC". Then these could be a huge success.
So the question is: Are they in a better or worse position before Intel gave them a hand?
They make very little profit on the Ultrabooks (or "will make very little" since they have not been released yet). In two years if they are still trying to race to the bottom of the bargain bucket whilst incorporating new technologies into their products, we could see many brands dropping ultrabooks, making cost cutting measure in quality/feature set or raising the prices - either way, Apple laughs all the way to the bank with their supply chain. I want competition to keep Apple on their toes but the competition seems to have dug a rather deep grave.
They make very little profit on the Ultrabooks (or "will make very little" since they have not been released yet). In two years if they are still trying to race to the bottom of the bargain bucket whilst incorporating new technologies into their products, we could see many brands dropping ultrabooks, making cost cutting measure in quality/feature set or raising the prices - either way, Apple laughs all the way to the bank with their supply chain. I want competition to keep Apple on their toes but the competition seems to have dug a rather deep grave.
I see this as Intel dangling a poisoned Apple in front of these other vendors telling they'll be able to compete better, but the whole point is to increase Intel's ULV/LV Core processor sales so they can invest more R&D into getting the performance up and the power usage down to appease Apple's demands.
Ok, Einstein.
*slow clap*
You definitely got me there. Good one!
From my understanding, the OEMs asked for even further discounts to which Intel said, "Hell no!" I think that Intel wants the OEMs to move away from the race to the bottom for their own good (HP anyone?) and also to stave off any thoughts of moving to ARM since Microsoft is now porting Windows 8 to ARM.
Exactly. This is mostly about ARM, not Apple.
Intel isn't trying to directly compete with Apple so the Ultrabook isn't a "response" to Apple.
It's kind of like if a kid taking an exam for a teacher, and the kid steals the answer sheet.
In this analogy Intel would be the kid, Apple is the teacher and the Macbook Air is the answer sheet
It's not just about Intel getting all the OEMs behind Intel reference designs in order to increase the economies of scale on their low voltage processors and chipsets as Solipsism mentioned above (although that is a huge part of it).
It's also about trying to shift the way the PC industry works. At the moment they favor configurable designs and off-the-shelf components which are used to support their plethora of model variations. This makes something like the MacBook Air with its appliance-like custom components and design impossible to make.
Also (perhaps even more importantly) it makes something like a x86 based tablet impossible to make.
The label will now say "Intel inside AND out!"
A pity it's still Windows through AND through!
Intel should make their own OS. Not as outrageous as it sounds.
I see this as Intel dangling a poisoned Apple in front of these other vendors telling they'll be able to compete better, but the whole point is to increase Intel's ULV/LV Core processor sales so they can invest more R&D into getting the performance up and the power usage down to appease Apple's demands.
But it will never go down enough to be in an Apple tablet by early 2013. Not the way things are looking. By then ARM will have the same horsepower of whatever Intel "scales down" to.
And Intel graphics will still be rubbish and PowerVR will continue to eat their lunch in the phone and tablet space. Intel still doesn't have a clue about how to make a decent GPU, let alone a mobile/tablet one. If the rumours(?) are to be believed PowerVR already has DX10.1/OpenGL3-capable GPUs... Man, I keep saying it but Apple is sooo close to busting out an iPad3 that will easily match the PS3 in terms of gaming capability. And that means iPhone, iPad, AppleTV that takes on all the "hardcore" gaming consoles in 2012 or 2013 at the very, very latest.
Intel should make their own OS. Not as outrageous as it sounds.
That's MeeGo isn't is?
It's a colossal failure AFAIK. Intel don't have the platform breadth to compete in the OS world.