The Laptop Conundrum / Catastrophe!

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
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>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    Apple could always try to put in another G4 in the Ti (or redesign the powerbook line). I think a Dual Pro Laptop would be very cool. Also, a Superdrive can justify a big enough gap between the consumer lineup and the pro.
  • Reply 2 of 24
    The difference between high and low end laptops hasn't been screen size for some time. Wintel notebooks are available with large screen sizes in a range of prices. The main difference has been things like bus speed, processor and i/o options.



    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>
  • Reply 3 of 24
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    I agree. I had a pismo 500 and I sold it to get the ibook 500. Pretty much the same machine but slower bus. AND smaller. That was the clincher for me. I don't want a big screen in a laptop. I don't want a sub note either. The ibook fits my needs, and many others' needs, perfectly. The ibook goes with me everywhere and the pismo did to, but I didn't enjoy it as much. If all laptops start coming with huge screens, I may be better off getting a desktop... But that's not going to happen, so I needn't worry
  • Reply 4 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Another major difference between laptops is component quality. You can find very cheap Dell and IBM laptops, in the 999US price range, but when you read the fine print, or personally check-out the models, you find out just why they're so cheap. NiMH batteries, heavy plastic cases, limited RAM expansion, no Windows NT/2000 drivers, no firewire, shared video, perhaps no USB... etc etc, In short, questionable build quality, and poor performance. I think this is why the iBook is so good. It isn't the cheapest laptop, but it is built, by all accounts, with quality components, ruggedness, and modern I/O options.



    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)
  • Reply 5 of 24
    whisperwhisper Posts: 735member
    To me, the difference between the high-end and low-end is all about performance, HD & RAM capacities, etc, but NOT size. IMHO, smaller laptops are more geared towards portability, and larger laptops are more for having a desktop replacement. While it's true that low-end lends itself well to portability, it doesn't mean that we can't have a cheap huge laptop with a dinky CPU and HD. Unfortunately, the nature of the faster (or bigger) stuff is such that they can't really fit into a small laptop.
  • Reply 6 of 24
    msleemslee Posts: 143member
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 24
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by mslee:

    <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.
  • Reply 8 of 24
    msleemslee Posts: 143member
    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 ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I'm not so sure about the Ti400. I tried one on a couple of occasions and it felt **very** sluggish. I never tried an iBook 500 but the 600 felt better in nearly every way. Still waiting for at least the sahara speeds to make it to the iBook.



    [ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 24
    [quote]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. <hr></blockquote>



    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.
  • Reply 11 of 24
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by mslee:

    <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.
  • Reply 12 of 24
    msleemslee Posts: 143member
    [quote]You're really missing the point.<hr></blockquote>



    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>
  • Reply 13 of 24
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by mslee:

    <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? But, regardless, if I feels that OS X is fine on my ibook, don't try and rain on my parade. If I'm happy with it, that should be worth something... (BTW, I know a G4 would be better for X, but the ibook is better for my back and wallet )
  • Reply 14 of 24
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <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.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    No i said the current iBook trumps the Ti400. I should have been clear in the first place; I meant the 600 model. The 500 iBook, to my mind, is really just a hold-over of the old rev1.



    edit: now wait a minute, I was clear -- you need to clean your screen -- I said that I never tried the iBook 500, but that the 600 seemed faster in most tasks. The above still holds true about my earliest post comparing the two.



    [ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    uhhh... going through your post again, mslee, I find that you were indeed being an ass, 'cause you launched into a flame fest without actually reading the post.
  • Reply 17 of 24
    Since computers currently rely heavily on technology they can't help but go through rapid changes as technology changes. If the looming identity crisis is cheap displays then you can bet there will be another after that until eventually all the hardware is almost free. At that point computer sales, if they still exist, will depend on style and associated intellectual property such as databases and special applications.



    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.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    [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
  • Reply 19 of 24
    bnoyhtuawbbnoyhtuawb Posts: 456member
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Scheisskopf

    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)
  • Reply 20 of 24
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    The current iBook is much further ahead than you think. It's already surpassed the previous rev. A 12" PowerBook in performance (faster CPU, better GPU).
Sign In or Register to comment.