Slashdot Mirror
Why Ultrabooks Are Falling Well Short of Intel's Targets
nk497 writes "When Paul Otellini announced Ultrabooks last year, he predicted they would grab 40% of the laptop market by this year. One analyst firm has said Ultrabooks will only make up 5% of the market this year, slashing its own sales predictions from 22m this year to 10.3m. However, IHS iSuppli said that Ultrabooks have a chance at success if manufacturers get prices down between $600 to $700 — a discount of as much as $400 on the average selling price of the devices — and they could still grab a third of the laptop market by 2016."
I'd go as far as to say MacBook Air.
If the price is the same, I'm going with the easy purchase, even if it's just to run Windows/Linux (though I suppose after-market Windows license messes the price some).
They really need good screens though, as someone that wants to actually do work, I want higher res screens, I'm perfectly content to move my face closer to see the details, I want to read full pages in the height of a monitor, I really need at least 900px of height.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
It's what happens when marketing people want to say "MacBook Air clone".
I don't understand how the crappy pc manufacturers still haven't learned that just because Apple can do it doesn't mean they can try and make a shitty copy and actually sell it.
They've keep trying.. tablets that flop, ultrabooks that flop, all-in-ones that flop..
Over and over they make shitty copies of apple products, price them the same, and then are bewildered when they don't sell.
I'd say probably the Tablet. The MacBook air is typically considered an ultrabook, and they've been out for a long time. My understanding from talking to quite a few people is that they understand ultrabooks to be basically low-powered laptops for quite a bit more money, much like a more powerful netbook. I imagine those who really want to reduce weight that much just opt for a tablet. Laptops can be had that are more powerful and are reasonably light ( 6 or 7lbs) for a lot less money.
VirtualBox, while I love the open source concept, isn't quite as generally stable as something like VMWare. Aside from that, what would be the point of having a OSX/Linux combo? Macports works well enough on OSX. Why not just save a bundle and get a standard laptop to put linux on if you don't need to run OSX software?
You are completely correct.
PC manufacturers are in a constant race to the bottom. They don't value their products, so neither do consumers.
> sure its not as slim or as light
Well, umm, there you go. Small and light costs money. This has been the case for the past 15 years with laptops.
Yup let's see (you forgot the PC, Power PC processors)... G5 based Macs were discontinued in August of 2006, And Apple ceased supporting them with the release of Snow Leopard in August of 2009. But hey three years of life out of a multiple thousand dollar machine isn't bad!
Let's also not even bring up the fact that OS X is nearing end of life, and who knows how Apple will handle it's successor. It also happens to be a bit of a clunker compared to many other modern *nix based OS's. Sure Aqua sitting on top of it gives you the impression of riding along in a Ferrari, until you pop the hood and see the small old diesel sitting in the engine compartment.
But Hey a quick look at the "have useful lives longer" poster's profile reveals a pattern of pro-Apple, anti-MS, posts... including a rather extremely ignorant post about "anyone who has ever shopped at newegg.com", probably means that bringing up any sort of valid point that contradicts his own will probably be pointless.
They are nice machine. I would have bought one if I instead on a competing 'ultrabook' if they weren't behaving like they wanted to show Microsoft and Oracle how Evil is *really* done. Giving money to Apple these days is funding the end of open computing.
You are complaining about high-priced Apple hardware. Apple hardware used to be expensive 10 years ago, when it was still manufactured in the US. In those days, everyone complained about the high price.
Nowadays, Apple hardware is competitively priced, and people complain that it is made in China, and they would be willing to pay an extra X% if it were built in the US. In general, these people are naive, "Buy Made USA" campaigns have been a failure since the 80s. It doesn't motivate people to buy.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I wonder how many of the fanboys who modded me down have had to do a reflow on a Macbook logical board... :p
There were lots of Windows machines sold right before Vista's launch that couldn't run it. But hey, three months life out of a computer isn't bad!
Summary: you're cherry picking.
Uhh, Linux ALWAYS takes tweeking to get working 100%, regardless of how standardized your components are.
Simply not true, but that's the impression people get. Whenever I have bought a system which was dedicated to Linux everything has worked great. If you bought a PC and then complained that the OS/X install was difficult people would think you were crazy. If you bought an Amiga and then complained that getting Windows 7 working was difficult they would laugh in your face. For some reason, however, people continue to recommend running Linux on hardware which wasn't set up for it. That's fine for yourself if you are a hobbyist. It's not fine if you are telling other people what to do. I think this is probably the thing which does the most damage to the reputation of Linux overall.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
They would have fixed it completely with a hippopotamus break-dancing on Saturn.