The Laptop Conundrum / Catastrophe!
Let's have a remotely 'real' topic for once about Future Hardware. 
I postulate, that their is a looming Laptop Conundrum / Catastrophe.
The premise is, the distinct difference between 'high-end' laptops and 'low-end' laptops is the size of their screens. 'High-end' laptops have bigger screens and cost more. 'Low-end' laptops have smaller screens and cost less. The screen size is the fundamental basis for the premium price of 'high-end' laptops.
However, as LCD screens are quickly becoming cheaper, and 'low-end' laptops are quickly gaining larger screens, at some point the 'low-end' and 'high-end' laptops will converge on screen size.
One would assume that the 'high-end' laptops will gain even bigger screens, but we should note, that after a certain size, bigger than say a 16" LCD, a laptop will cease to be a laptop, since the overly large screen becomes too combersome to handle as a portable device.
The 'high-end' --high-margin -- laptop market is going to collapse. Faster CPUs and bigger harddrives alone will not justify the permium price of 'high-end' laptops.
In a few years, we will all be able to own Titanium-class laptops for no more than $999-$1200.
15"LCD laptops will become ubiquitous. The industry is facing a collapse of their last source of high-margin products and profits.
Then what will the industry do? What will become of laptops? Are there any looming technologies that will alter this path? Or will 17", 18" LCD or greater size laptops actually be viable?
Discuss. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: NeoMac ]</p>
I postulate, that their is a looming Laptop Conundrum / Catastrophe.
The premise is, the distinct difference between 'high-end' laptops and 'low-end' laptops is the size of their screens. 'High-end' laptops have bigger screens and cost more. 'Low-end' laptops have smaller screens and cost less. The screen size is the fundamental basis for the premium price of 'high-end' laptops.
However, as LCD screens are quickly becoming cheaper, and 'low-end' laptops are quickly gaining larger screens, at some point the 'low-end' and 'high-end' laptops will converge on screen size.
One would assume that the 'high-end' laptops will gain even bigger screens, but we should note, that after a certain size, bigger than say a 16" LCD, a laptop will cease to be a laptop, since the overly large screen becomes too combersome to handle as a portable device.
The 'high-end' --high-margin -- laptop market is going to collapse. Faster CPUs and bigger harddrives alone will not justify the permium price of 'high-end' laptops.
In a few years, we will all be able to own Titanium-class laptops for no more than $999-$1200.
15"LCD laptops will become ubiquitous. The industry is facing a collapse of their last source of high-margin products and profits.
Then what will the industry do? What will become of laptops? Are there any looming technologies that will alter this path? Or will 17", 18" LCD or greater size laptops actually be viable?
Discuss. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: NeoMac ]</p>
Comments
You are correct on the apple front. They have used screen size as a tool to separate the models as you say, but their laptops are different sizes and are aimed at slightly different markets....
powerbook = all in one desktop replacement for those types that want to do a/v editing, photoshop etc...basicaly a workstation replacement
ibook = all in one, small form factor replacement for an all in one desktop. Great for internet, e-mail, some games, basic stuff. much easier to pack around, and tough
So how does apple maintain the difference?
* they don't sell the ibook with a screen larger that ~13" People who want a notebook that is easy to pack around don't want 15" screens. The ibook is much easier to handle on the road because it is smaller. Even the pismo era powerbooks are a pain to carry around compared to the new ibook.
* They introduce new technologies first on powerbooks, Lithium Polymer batteries, Higher resolution lcd, light emiting polymer screens, faster processors, etc...
The ibook is going to continue to be a lower cost notebook because of its smaller form factor and parts that are slightly older and cheeper to produce.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Mike D ]</p>
OTOH, I've no doubt that the iBook will deliver powerbook level performance within a year, just as the current iBook trumps the pismo, and even the Ti400. But, by that time, the PowerBook will have moved up another level of performance aswell. Also, it will always be available with bigger drives, more RAM, more up to date video and I/O, and as yet unseen features first (Combo excepted: blame the focus on design)
The G3 can't handle OSX without brute force. Seriously, only the 600MHz and greater G3 procs run OS X decently. SIMD is the shit. Love SIMD. Know SIMD. Demand SIMD.
<strong>I'm typing from an iBook 500 with 640MB of RAM. This thing does not even come close to my Ti400 with 384 MB of RAM in OSX.
The G3 can't handle OSX without brute force. Seriously, only the 600MHz and greater G3 procs run OS X decently. SIMD is the shit. Love SIMD. Know SIMD. Demand SIMD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't agree. My 500 MHz iBook w/ 384MB runs OS X fine.
But try this: get a TiBook 400 and run your cursor quickly from end of the dock to the other (with small size and high mag). Like butter.
Now try the same thing with your iBook. Big difference. Try comparing the times it takes to open and display the contents of a folder. Bah. How can you say that OSX runs better on a 500 iBook than on a 400 TiBook?
I say the 400 TiBook creams a 500 iBook for two major reasons. OSX is SIMD optimized. and the bus speed difference. So please, don't come in here spewing crap about how your 500 MHz "feels" fine. Compare it to ANY TiBook and you'll have an actual benchmark with which to compare your iBook to.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: mslee ]</p>
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
Not just screen size, but motherboard performance and CPU speed, as well as form factor.
For example, the ti and the iBook differ in:
CPU performance
Bus performance
GPU performance
size/weight
So screen size is only one of many parameters differentiating between the low and high ends.
Also, there is more to a display than size. The high end models will probably always have higher resolution than the low end models. To many, resolution is more important than screen size. Take the iBook: it's resolution is exceptional, and thus it's screen is more valuable than many larger screens.
<strong>Maybe. Thats a subjective opinion.
But try this: get a TiBook 400 and run your cursor quickly from end of the dock to the other (with small size and high mag). Like butter.
Now try the same thing with your iBook. Big difference. Try comparing the times it takes to open and display the contents of a folder. Bah. How can you say that OSX runs better on a 500 iBook than on a 400 TiBook?
I say the 400 TiBook creams a 500 iBook for two major reasons. OSX is SIMD optimized. and the bus speed difference. So please, don't come in here spewing crap about how your 500 MHz "feels" fine. Compare it to ANY TiBook and you'll have an actual benchmark with which to compare your iBook to.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: mslee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're really missing the point. OS X feels fine because it's a subjective thing. OS X feels great on my ibook 500/384. Sure, if I looked at an 867g4, my ibook would seem slow. Gimme a break. Don't be an ass.
Actually, subjective impressions of the iBook 500's speed (or lack thereof) in OSX is not the issue.
Matsu said the iBook 500 trumps the TiBook 400.
It does not. Both in subjective impressions of relative speeds and of benchmarks. In OS 9 the difference is negligible, but in OS X, with the quartz layer, its reliance on the SIMD, and its overall taxation of the hardware, the TiBook is far superior in all but a few benchmarks.
The issue I have a problem with is when Matsu, in so many words, says that the "iBook 500 trumps the Ti400"
It doesn't. I own both and use both on a regular basis. The TiBook makes using OSX much more satisfying.
I was not being an ass. I was being hard-nosed about something. I'm not here to congratulate everyone on owning a Mac and how great Macs are. I'm here to hear about zany rumors, and when someone posts something like Matsu did, I feel compelled to correct their error.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: mslee ]</p>
<strong>
Actually, subjective impressions of the iBook 500's speed (or lack thereof) in OSX is not the issue.
Matsu said the iBook 500 trumps the TiBook 400.
It does not. Both in subjective impressions of relative speeds and of benchmarks. In OS 9 the difference is negligible, but in OS X, with the quartz layer, its reliance on the SIMD, and its overall taxation of the hardware, the TiBook is far superior in all but a few benchmarks.
The issue I have a problem with is when Matsu, in so many words, says that the "iBook 500 trumps the Ti400"
It doesn't. I own both and use both on a regular basis. The TiBook makes using OSX much more satisfying.
I was not being an ass. I was being hard-nosed about something. I'm not here to congratulate everyone on owning a Mac and how great Macs are. I'm here to hear about zany rumors, and when someone posts something like Matsu did, I feel compelled to correct their error.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: mslee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough. Do you happen to work for Moto?
<strong>I'm not so sure about the Ti400. I tried one on a couple of occasions and it felt **very** sluggish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same opinion I have after trying 2 400 MHz TiBooks in the past.
edit: now wait a minute, I was clear -- you need to clean your screen
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
Anyway, coming back to today's problem, there are many things that differentiate higher end from lower end laptops. The screen is the most visible because it determines the product size and shape, However, the keyboard, graphics chip, battery quality, HD speed, bus speed are all available when making cost - performance trade offs.
In Apple's case, they just have two laptops (iBook and TiBook). Most other manufacturers have three or more form factors in their product lineup. Apple could easily do the same.
Just for grins:
subnote: 12 inch screen, 2 pounds, half an inch thick
notebook: similar to an iBook but maybe with a 14 inch screen.
TiBook: about as now
Top Book: 17 inch, wide aspect ratio display, dual G4's, combo drive, the works. Weighs 9 pounds. Maybe it gets only an hour of battery life but it is easily portable to remote sites for people working on films or other processor intensive tasks.
<strong>Then what will the industry do? What will become of laptops? Are there any looming technologies that will alter this path? Or will 17", 18" LCD or greater size laptops actually be viable?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe you can look at Conan O'Brian's Drum from another perspective, mainly the marketing one.
Steve isn't marketing the TiBook to simulate sub-atomic reactions in a nuclear blast to observe their quantum state (only Michael Crichton can do that). He selling Style with some Functionality. He's using Sex, the Universal Language of Advertising.
With the iBook, it's Functionality with some Style.
Each is designed with its intended market in mind. Apple's intended market is not programmers or developers or engineers. It's content producers and academia.
Okay-- now ask yourself how you can sell laptops to these target markets. That helps define your minimum hardware requirements. Then add a pinch of Gigawire or 802.11g for spice and flavor, simmer over a G5 with a marketing gimmick ("Velocity Engine" is already taken), and you have a new laptop.
Think differently-- Business first, technical later.
My two pfennigs.
~e
Quote:
Originally posted by NeoMac:
<strong>Then what will the industry do? What will become of laptops? Are there any looming technologies that will alter this path? Or will 17", 18" LCD or greater size laptops actually be viable?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe you can look at Conan O'Brian's Drum from another perspective, mainly the marketing one.
Steve isn't marketing the TiBook to simulate sub-atomic reactions in a nuclear blast to observe their quantum state (only Michael Crichton can do that). He selling Style with some Functionality. He's using Sex, the Universal Language of Advertising.
With the iBook, it's Functionality with some Style.
Each is designed with its intended market in mind. Apple's intended market is not programmers or developers or engineers. It's content producers and academia.
Okay-- now ask yourself how you can sell laptops to these target markets. That helps define your minimum hardware requirements. Then add a pinch of Gigawire or 802.11g for spice and flavor, simmer over a G5 with a marketing gimmick ("Velocity Engine" is already taken), and you have a new laptop.
Think differently-- Business first, technical later.
My two pfennigs.
~e
17" is here.
18" don't think so!
Waiting for the 17" dual 1GHz G4 (7447A)