That wasn't a trend. That was a total technology shift, going from analog to digital. This is different. No matter how good portables get, desktops will always be much better.
But better enough to matter? If portables now have sufficient computing capability at a low enough cost for most users then being better for less is no longer all that important.
Given that assumption there's no need for the trend to reverse although it should be expected that notebooks will likely also suffer the same fate at some point in favor of something that today is too expensive or too limited for mainstream appeal.
Heck, there are few things you can't do with a notebook these days.
Heck, there are few things you can't do with a notebook these days.
This is basically it as far as I can tell. It seems as if Apple has decided that if you need a desktop, then you really need a workstation system. Their existing desktop line really isn't that much better than their notebooks in terms of performance or cost. I think their push to get rid of consumer desktops is still a little premature.
But better enough to matter? If portables now have sufficient computing capability at a low enough cost for most users then being better for less is no longer all that important.
That's the question, isn't it?
In my daughters school, for example, we are buying 50 iMacs for the art department, and 8 Mac Pro's for the tech department, while buying 40 Mac Books for more academic purposes.
Quote:
Given that assumption there's no need for the trend to reverse although it should be expected that notebooks will likely also suffer the same fate at some point in favor of something that today is too expensive or too limited for mainstream appeal.
Heck, there are few things you can't do with a notebook these days.
Vinea
The other thing is the rez independance we keep arguing about. I don't think that a 13.3 to 15.4 inch screen is best for much of that. It's far more useful on larger screens.
There will always be a reason for both, until that new development that will effectively end both form factors.
In my daughters school, for example, we are buying 50 iMacs for the art department, and 8 Mac Pro's for the tech department, while buying 40 Mac Books for more academic purposes.
The other thing is the rez independance we keep arguing about. I don't think that a 13.3 to 15.4 inch screen is best for much of that. It's far more useful on larger screens.
There will always be a reason for both, until that new development that will effectively end both form factors.
Sure, but I think the original question was whether or not Apple was in a precarious position to rely on growing notebook sales to fuel growing market share, if there might be a shift away from notebooks that would leave them without the appropriate offerings.
While I actually am one of the people who wish Apple would offer a mid-range expandable desktop, and who agrees that there may be market share being left on the table until they do, I still think they are in great shape if they continue to make big advances in notebook sales.
I just can't see what new circumstances would stem the shift from desktop to portable computing. There are just too many plusses and not enough minuses, except for a few specialized areas where big iron or big screen real estate is a must.
Sure, but I think the original question was whether or not Apple was in a precarious position to rely on growing notebook sales to fuel growing market share, if there might be a shift away from notebooks that would leave them without the appropriate offerings.
That was my original question.
Quote:
While I actually am one of the people who wish Apple would offer a mid-range expandable desktop, and who agrees that there may be market share being left on the table until they do, I still think they are in great shape if they continue to make big advances in notebook sales.
I just can't see what new circumstances would stem the shift from desktop to portable computing. There are just too many plusses and not enough minuses, except for a few specialized areas where big iron or big screen real estate is a must.
I'm also sure from what I remember over the years that no one thought there would be a shift TO portables, that it wouls always be a specialized market.
things change.
We have four computers at my house, none are portables. We all have large screens and good graphics cards, etc.
The other thing is the rez independance we keep arguing about. I don't think that a 13.3 to 15.4 inch screen is best for much of that. It's far more useful on larger screens.
Well, resolution independence on the 13 & 15 would be nice for higher resolution on dinky screens...and I run my 30" ACD on my MBP regularly even though I have a Mac Pro.
I wish my KVM actually handled the 30" ACD without freaking itself or the monitor out.
Well, resolution independence on the 13 & 15 would be nice for higher resolution on dinky screens...and I run my 30" ACD on my MBP regularly even though I have a Mac Pro.
I wish my KVM actually handled the 30" ACD without freaking itself or the monitor out.
I'm not challenging the graphics on my 30", I usually only want a large 2D display area.
I hadn't thought about KVMs,that sounds amusing. Given that there are only a few 30" models and not a large installed base of them, I can imagine that a KVM that handles dual link DVI are pretty rare.
Well, resolution independence on the 13 & 15 would be nice for higher resolution on dinky screens...and I run my 30" ACD on my MBP regularly even though I have a Mac Pro.
I wish my KVM actually handled the 30" ACD without freaking itself or the monitor out.
Vinea
I'm just not sure it would make any difference on those small portable screens which aren't often that great to begin with, and are also often positioned so that there are reflections and glare.
The 30" does present a problem. There are no KVM's that will pass an undistorted signal of that rez at this time. I've checked with commercial box makers on that one.
You know that the next rez upgrade for Hi def will be 2560 x 1440? I was given two private showings at the Home Entertainment Show this past week. Yum!
You know that the next rez upgrade for Hi def will be 2560 x 1440? I was given two private showings at the Home Entertainment Show this past week. Yum!
I hadn't heard of that one. There are other formats vying for the next wave, 4k, and NHK has demonstrated 2160p and 4320p, which are both very nice, though the short term expectation is that those formats it would only be used in museums and specialized fields.
I hadn't heard of that one. There are other formats vying for the next wave, 4k, and NHK has demonstrated 2160p and 4320p, which are both very nice, though the short term expectation is that those formats it would only be used in museums and specialized fields.
Actually, the one planned for the home after 1440p is 2160p. But that is a ways off.
Manufacturers are fooling around with higher definition formats (mostly in the form of displays, from what I've seen) but there aren't any standards in place so it doesn't really amount to much.
There is precious little 1080p content available by any distribution medium, at the moment, and absolutely nothing on the horizon that could do 1440p, beyond a few overreaching display manufacturers.
It seems pretty unlikely that the two competing HD DVD specs are going to muddy the waters with 1440p (if either format could even handle the file sizes or data rates) when they haven't even begun to make a dent with 1080p, ditto for cable and satellite. The bandwidth infrastructure just isn't there, nor is it likely to be for some time to come, as manufacturers and broadcasters consolidate their move to "standard" HD.
I see the home video distribution industry standardizing on the existing HD 720 and 1080 levels for at least the next ten years if not longer. You just can't churn the market that quickly, when you're trying to get people to drop many thousands of dollars on your new formats.
You know that the next rez upgrade for Hi def will be 2560 x 1440? I was given two private showings at the Home Entertainment Show this past week. Yum!
Yes...and I'm jealous. Still stuck in 720p land...of course its on a 100" screen...
Manufacturers are fooling around with higher definition formats (mostly in the form of displays, from what I've seen) but there aren't any standards in place so it doesn't really amount to much.
There is precious little 1080p content available by any distribution medium, at the moment, and absolutely nothing on the horizon that could do 1440p, beyond a few overreaching display manufacturers.
It seems pretty unlikely that the two competing HD DVD specs are going to muddy the waters with 1440p (if either format could even handle the file sizes or data rates) when they haven't even begun to make a dent with 1080p, ditto for cable and satellite. The bandwidth infrastructure just isn't there, nor is it likely to be for some time to come, as manufacturers and broadcasters consolidate their move to "standard" HD.
I see the home video distribution industry standardizing on the existing HD 720 and 1080 levels for at least the next ten years if not longer. You just can't churn the market that quickly, when you're trying to get people to drop many thousands of dollars on your new formats.
Content might be stuck at 1080p/24 (and not quite fully) but 1440p reduces the distance that you can sit before you see pixels. That a benefit for those of us using front projection and large screens.
Manufacturers are fooling around with higher definition formats (mostly in the form of displays, from what I've seen) but there aren't any standards in place so it doesn't really amount to much.
There is precious little 1080p content available by any distribution medium, at the moment, and absolutely nothing on the horizon that could do 1440p, beyond a few overreaching display manufacturers.
It seems pretty unlikely that the two competing HD DVD specs are going to muddy the waters with 1440p (if either format could even handle the file sizes or data rates) when they haven't even begun to make a dent with 1080p, ditto for cable and satellite. The bandwidth infrastructure just isn't there, nor is it likely to be for some time to come, as manufacturers and broadcasters consolidate their move to "standard" HD.
I see the home video distribution industry standardizing on the existing HD 720 and 1080 levels for at least the next ten years if not longer. You just can't churn the market that quickly, when you're trying to get people to drop many thousands of dollars on your new formats.
Despite what you may think. there are plans for 1440p already in the works. We won't see it until 2009 or so though.
Things will be getting dramatically cheaper over the next two years. Both broadcast and equipment are getting much better as well. The ability to deliver, and receive 1440p will be in place by then. That doesn't mean that it will be a major delivery system at that time, just that components will be for sale, and some premium broadcasts will be available, along with much content on the web for download.
Eventually, we will see the wall sized screens we saw in the old movie "Fahrenheit 451".
Unlike previous non digital generations of products, digital allows for rapid progression in quality, or storage.
The technology is far better than it was when the first baby steps were taken with digital tape formats and CD.
Despite what you may think. there are plans for 1440p already in the works. We won't see it until 2009 or so though.
Things will be getting dramatically cheaper over the next two years. Both broadcast and equipment are getting much better as well. The ability to deliver, and receive 1440p will be in place by then. That doesn't mean that it will be a major delivery system at that time, just that components will be for sale, and some premium broadcasts will be available, along with much content on the web for download.
Eventually, we will see the wall sized screens we saw in the old movie "Fahrenheit 451".
Unlike previous non digital generations of products, digital allows for rapid progression in quality, or storage.
The technology is far better than it was when the first baby steps were taken with digital tape formats and CD.
2009? That seems wildly optimistic.
"Plans in the works" does not equal "consumer interest or demand". Content providers are always scheming on ways to sell the same material yet again, that doesn't mean they get to start shifting everybody over in a couple of years.
I don't understand how "no major delivery system" coexists in the same world as "components for sale" and "some premium broadcasts". You mean higher density displays on the market prompt the studios or cable operators to do non-standardized transfers and commit bandwidth to a format that the vast majority of people can't do anything with?
And I realize that things are coming along nicely in broadband land, but the idea that there will be a lot of 1440p content on line in a few years when there is precious little 1080p available, a number of years into the HD "revolution", also seems a tad premature.
I realize that digital formats scale quickly; that's not the same as the entire CE and entertainment industry scaling as well. 1080p delivery and consumption is still in its infancy, a few years from now I would imagine that it would just be getting real traction.
Sony has a 4K projector or two so the display side is covered. Source material will likely be limited to upconversion from HD and maybe a trailer here or there and specialty video.
"Plans in the works" does not equal "consumer interest or demand". Content providers are always scheming on ways to sell the same material yet again, that doesn't mean they get to start shifting everybody over in a couple of years.
I don't understand how "no major delivery system" coexists in the same world as "components for sale" and "some premium broadcasts". You mean higher density displays on the market prompt the studios or cable operators to do non-standardized transfers and commit bandwidth to a format that the vast majority of people can't do anything with?
And I realize that things are coming along nicely in broadband land, but the idea that there will be a lot of 1440p content on line in a few years when there is precious little 1080p available, a number of years into the HD "revolution", also seems a tad premature.
I realize that digital formats scale quickly; that's not the same as the entire CE and entertainment industry scaling as well. 1080p delivery and consumption is still in its infancy, a few years from now I would imagine that it would just be getting real traction.
Probably holiday 2009. That would be two and a half years. We are going to see higher standards in a more compressed timeframe from now on. Look at how the HDMI specs have evolved. Newer tech will make this much less expensive by then, allowing this to occur.
Look at the price of some 30" monitors with slightly higher than 1440p specs. By holiday 2009, those prices will be well under half of what they are now, possibly even lower.
The same thing will be seen for larger Tv monitors. It will likely cost no more than $4,000 for a 70" 1440p screen by then, possibly even a lot less.
Insofar as customer interest goes, that is generated by new products and technologies. There is no customer interest until it becomes available. Video is a far larger area of spending than music, or even computers.
When I say broadcast, perhaps I'm not being clear. I come from a time far away. To me "broadcast" is the first word that comes to hand.
Comcast and Verison are both putting into place very high speed networks. Both companies are selling video, movies, and music over those networks. to all intents, they have infinite bandwidth. We are not talking about limited airwave spectrum, or limited satellite bandwidth.
There is a fair amount of 1080p and 1080i around now. You just have to look.
I'm certainly not expecting this to become mass market by then, but we will have it available.
I've seen industry estimates for 2k as soon as 2015.
Comments
That wasn't a trend. That was a total technology shift, going from analog to digital. This is different. No matter how good portables get, desktops will always be much better.
But better enough to matter? If portables now have sufficient computing capability at a low enough cost for most users then being better for less is no longer all that important.
Given that assumption there's no need for the trend to reverse although it should be expected that notebooks will likely also suffer the same fate at some point in favor of something that today is too expensive or too limited for mainstream appeal.
Heck, there are few things you can't do with a notebook these days.
Vinea
Heck, there are few things you can't do with a notebook these days.
This is basically it as far as I can tell. It seems as if Apple has decided that if you need a desktop, then you really need a workstation system. Their existing desktop line really isn't that much better than their notebooks in terms of performance or cost. I think their push to get rid of consumer desktops is still a little premature.
But better enough to matter? If portables now have sufficient computing capability at a low enough cost for most users then being better for less is no longer all that important.
That's the question, isn't it?
In my daughters school, for example, we are buying 50 iMacs for the art department, and 8 Mac Pro's for the tech department, while buying 40 Mac Books for more academic purposes.
Given that assumption there's no need for the trend to reverse although it should be expected that notebooks will likely also suffer the same fate at some point in favor of something that today is too expensive or too limited for mainstream appeal.
Heck, there are few things you can't do with a notebook these days.
Vinea
The other thing is the rez independance we keep arguing about. I don't think that a 13.3 to 15.4 inch screen is best for much of that. It's far more useful on larger screens.
There will always be a reason for both, until that new development that will effectively end both form factors.
That's the question, isn't it?
In my daughters school, for example, we are buying 50 iMacs for the art department, and 8 Mac Pro's for the tech department, while buying 40 Mac Books for more academic purposes.
The other thing is the rez independance we keep arguing about. I don't think that a 13.3 to 15.4 inch screen is best for much of that. It's far more useful on larger screens.
There will always be a reason for both, until that new development that will effectively end both form factors.
Sure, but I think the original question was whether or not Apple was in a precarious position to rely on growing notebook sales to fuel growing market share, if there might be a shift away from notebooks that would leave them without the appropriate offerings.
While I actually am one of the people who wish Apple would offer a mid-range expandable desktop, and who agrees that there may be market share being left on the table until they do, I still think they are in great shape if they continue to make big advances in notebook sales.
I just can't see what new circumstances would stem the shift from desktop to portable computing. There are just too many plusses and not enough minuses, except for a few specialized areas where big iron or big screen real estate is a must.
Sure, but I think the original question was whether or not Apple was in a precarious position to rely on growing notebook sales to fuel growing market share, if there might be a shift away from notebooks that would leave them without the appropriate offerings.
That was my original question.
While I actually am one of the people who wish Apple would offer a mid-range expandable desktop, and who agrees that there may be market share being left on the table until they do, I still think they are in great shape if they continue to make big advances in notebook sales.
I just can't see what new circumstances would stem the shift from desktop to portable computing. There are just too many plusses and not enough minuses, except for a few specialized areas where big iron or big screen real estate is a must.
I'm also sure from what I remember over the years that no one thought there would be a shift TO portables, that it wouls always be a specialized market.
things change.
We have four computers at my house, none are portables. We all have large screens and good graphics cards, etc.
I don't see portables replacing them.
The other thing is the rez independance we keep arguing about. I don't think that a 13.3 to 15.4 inch screen is best for much of that. It's far more useful on larger screens.
Well, resolution independence on the 13 & 15 would be nice for higher resolution on dinky screens...and I run my 30" ACD on my MBP regularly even though I have a Mac Pro.
I wish my KVM actually handled the 30" ACD without freaking itself or the monitor out.
Vinea
Well, resolution independence on the 13 & 15 would be nice for higher resolution on dinky screens...and I run my 30" ACD on my MBP regularly even though I have a Mac Pro.
I wish my KVM actually handled the 30" ACD without freaking itself or the monitor out.
I'm not challenging the graphics on my 30", I usually only want a large 2D display area.
I hadn't thought about KVMs,that sounds amusing. Given that there are only a few 30" models and not a large installed base of them, I can imagine that a KVM that handles dual link DVI are pretty rare.
Well, resolution independence on the 13 & 15 would be nice for higher resolution on dinky screens...and I run my 30" ACD on my MBP regularly even though I have a Mac Pro.
I wish my KVM actually handled the 30" ACD without freaking itself or the monitor out.
Vinea
I'm just not sure it would make any difference on those small portable screens which aren't often that great to begin with, and are also often positioned so that there are reflections and glare.
The 30" does present a problem. There are no KVM's that will pass an undistorted signal of that rez at this time. I've checked with commercial box makers on that one.
You know that the next rez upgrade for Hi def will be 2560 x 1440? I was given two private showings at the Home Entertainment Show this past week. Yum!
You know that the next rez upgrade for Hi def will be 2560 x 1440? I was given two private showings at the Home Entertainment Show this past week. Yum!
I hadn't heard of that one. There are other formats vying for the next wave, 4k, and NHK has demonstrated 2160p and 4320p, which are both very nice, though the short term expectation is that those formats it would only be used in museums and specialized fields.
I hadn't heard of that one. There are other formats vying for the next wave, 4k, and NHK has demonstrated 2160p and 4320p, which are both very nice, though the short term expectation is that those formats it would only be used in museums and specialized fields.
Actually, the one planned for the home after 1440p is 2160p. But that is a ways off.
There is precious little 1080p content available by any distribution medium, at the moment, and absolutely nothing on the horizon that could do 1440p, beyond a few overreaching display manufacturers.
It seems pretty unlikely that the two competing HD DVD specs are going to muddy the waters with 1440p (if either format could even handle the file sizes or data rates) when they haven't even begun to make a dent with 1080p, ditto for cable and satellite. The bandwidth infrastructure just isn't there, nor is it likely to be for some time to come, as manufacturers and broadcasters consolidate their move to "standard" HD.
I see the home video distribution industry standardizing on the existing HD 720 and 1080 levels for at least the next ten years if not longer. You just can't churn the market that quickly, when you're trying to get people to drop many thousands of dollars on your new formats.
You know that the next rez upgrade for Hi def will be 2560 x 1440? I was given two private showings at the Home Entertainment Show this past week. Yum!
Yes...and I'm jealous.
Vinea
Manufacturers are fooling around with higher definition formats (mostly in the form of displays, from what I've seen) but there aren't any standards in place so it doesn't really amount to much.
There is precious little 1080p content available by any distribution medium, at the moment, and absolutely nothing on the horizon that could do 1440p, beyond a few overreaching display manufacturers.
It seems pretty unlikely that the two competing HD DVD specs are going to muddy the waters with 1440p (if either format could even handle the file sizes or data rates) when they haven't even begun to make a dent with 1080p, ditto for cable and satellite. The bandwidth infrastructure just isn't there, nor is it likely to be for some time to come, as manufacturers and broadcasters consolidate their move to "standard" HD.
I see the home video distribution industry standardizing on the existing HD 720 and 1080 levels for at least the next ten years if not longer. You just can't churn the market that quickly, when you're trying to get people to drop many thousands of dollars on your new formats.
Content might be stuck at 1080p/24 (and not quite fully) but 1440p reduces the distance that you can sit before you see pixels. That a benefit for those of us using front projection and large screens.
Vinea
Manufacturers are fooling around with higher definition formats (mostly in the form of displays, from what I've seen) but there aren't any standards in place so it doesn't really amount to much.
There is precious little 1080p content available by any distribution medium, at the moment, and absolutely nothing on the horizon that could do 1440p, beyond a few overreaching display manufacturers.
It seems pretty unlikely that the two competing HD DVD specs are going to muddy the waters with 1440p (if either format could even handle the file sizes or data rates) when they haven't even begun to make a dent with 1080p, ditto for cable and satellite. The bandwidth infrastructure just isn't there, nor is it likely to be for some time to come, as manufacturers and broadcasters consolidate their move to "standard" HD.
I see the home video distribution industry standardizing on the existing HD 720 and 1080 levels for at least the next ten years if not longer. You just can't churn the market that quickly, when you're trying to get people to drop many thousands of dollars on your new formats.
Despite what you may think. there are plans for 1440p already in the works. We won't see it until 2009 or so though.
Things will be getting dramatically cheaper over the next two years. Both broadcast and equipment are getting much better as well. The ability to deliver, and receive 1440p will be in place by then. That doesn't mean that it will be a major delivery system at that time, just that components will be for sale, and some premium broadcasts will be available, along with much content on the web for download.
Eventually, we will see the wall sized screens we saw in the old movie "Fahrenheit 451".
Unlike previous non digital generations of products, digital allows for rapid progression in quality, or storage.
The technology is far better than it was when the first baby steps were taken with digital tape formats and CD.
Despite what you may think. there are plans for 1440p already in the works. We won't see it until 2009 or so though.
Things will be getting dramatically cheaper over the next two years. Both broadcast and equipment are getting much better as well. The ability to deliver, and receive 1440p will be in place by then. That doesn't mean that it will be a major delivery system at that time, just that components will be for sale, and some premium broadcasts will be available, along with much content on the web for download.
Eventually, we will see the wall sized screens we saw in the old movie "Fahrenheit 451".
Unlike previous non digital generations of products, digital allows for rapid progression in quality, or storage.
The technology is far better than it was when the first baby steps were taken with digital tape formats and CD.
2009? That seems wildly optimistic.
"Plans in the works" does not equal "consumer interest or demand". Content providers are always scheming on ways to sell the same material yet again, that doesn't mean they get to start shifting everybody over in a couple of years.
I don't understand how "no major delivery system" coexists in the same world as "components for sale" and "some premium broadcasts". You mean higher density displays on the market prompt the studios or cable operators to do non-standardized transfers and commit bandwidth to a format that the vast majority of people can't do anything with?
And I realize that things are coming along nicely in broadband land, but the idea that there will be a lot of 1440p content on line in a few years when there is precious little 1080p available, a number of years into the HD "revolution", also seems a tad premature.
I realize that digital formats scale quickly; that's not the same as the entire CE and entertainment industry scaling as well. 1080p delivery and consumption is still in its infancy, a few years from now I would imagine that it would just be getting real traction.
2009? That seems wildly optimistic.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/17...p-lcd-in-2007/
Sony has a 4K projector or two so the display side is covered. Source material will likely be limited to upconversion from HD and maybe a trailer here or there and specialty video.
Vinea
2009? That seems wildly optimistic.
"Plans in the works" does not equal "consumer interest or demand". Content providers are always scheming on ways to sell the same material yet again, that doesn't mean they get to start shifting everybody over in a couple of years.
I don't understand how "no major delivery system" coexists in the same world as "components for sale" and "some premium broadcasts". You mean higher density displays on the market prompt the studios or cable operators to do non-standardized transfers and commit bandwidth to a format that the vast majority of people can't do anything with?
And I realize that things are coming along nicely in broadband land, but the idea that there will be a lot of 1440p content on line in a few years when there is precious little 1080p available, a number of years into the HD "revolution", also seems a tad premature.
I realize that digital formats scale quickly; that's not the same as the entire CE and entertainment industry scaling as well. 1080p delivery and consumption is still in its infancy, a few years from now I would imagine that it would just be getting real traction.
Probably holiday 2009. That would be two and a half years. We are going to see higher standards in a more compressed timeframe from now on. Look at how the HDMI specs have evolved. Newer tech will make this much less expensive by then, allowing this to occur.
Look at the price of some 30" monitors with slightly higher than 1440p specs. By holiday 2009, those prices will be well under half of what they are now, possibly even lower.
The same thing will be seen for larger Tv monitors. It will likely cost no more than $4,000 for a 70" 1440p screen by then, possibly even a lot less.
Insofar as customer interest goes, that is generated by new products and technologies. There is no customer interest until it becomes available. Video is a far larger area of spending than music, or even computers.
When I say broadcast, perhaps I'm not being clear. I come from a time far away.
Comcast and Verison are both putting into place very high speed networks. Both companies are selling video, movies, and music over those networks. to all intents, they have infinite bandwidth. We are not talking about limited airwave spectrum, or limited satellite bandwidth.
There is a fair amount of 1080p and 1080i around now. You just have to look.
I'm certainly not expecting this to become mass market by then, but we will have it available.
I've seen industry estimates for 2k as soon as 2015.