I love to read articles and comments by individuals who make up figures to support their assumptions, but those that rely on general myths are even more fun.
"Widescreens are smaller LCD surface area, so companies save money"--companies don't get to purchase LCD panels the way you purchase flooring for your kitchen, and in truth, the cost of a square inch of a widescreen LCD panel is higher than it is on standard aspect ratio panels.
"we should stick to letting the consumer decide"--the thing is that the consumers do decide, but if you think that the individual consumer should have the power to influence the entire industry, then you probably still believe the US is a democracy. Crack open that civics textbook and let us know when you figure it out. The vast majority of notebook consumers do want widescreens, which is why we have them. It wasn't just a fun change for the industry, though it did happen to reduce the average size of notebooks by virtue of the fact that the chassis are smaller, etc.
"most DVDs are non-widescreen"--not sure where this one came from, but I'd like someone to explain it to me. This was likely true of the VHS era, but the prevalance of the DVD format and the soaring popularity of HD formats has turned standard aspect ratio film into a feature offered only for holdovers who 'can't stand the black bars'.
In any case, I hated my widescreen notebook screen because of the available resolution in a standard 15" monitor. Just picked up a new 'high def' Dell XPS notebook with 1920x1200 resolution in 15.4" and life is wonderful in mobile dev again. As another reader pointed out, however, I dock whenever possible and use 2x24" widescreen LCDs, which is by far the preferred mode. Screen space is king, but efficient use of the space available makes widescreen a smarter choice.
The assumption that less build-to-order means less share is laughable--was that a Carson Daily joke or an attempt to educate the masses?
The consumer end of the PC market is buying more and more laptops, and they are doing that purchasing in retail outlets in increasing numbers. The trend makes sense, considering the laptop is not only being commoditized, but also is a seemingly necessary fashion statement--"I want my notebook to say something about me and my personality." It is a touch and feel product, and as the consumer market space moves further and further into portables, a direct model business appeals to a much smaller part of the market.
What's more, the move actually gives consumers greater choice in how they buy in addition to the ability to impact exactly what they buy. A customer, like myself and likely many of you, who wants a high degree of specificity, retains the ability to pick up the phone or hit up the daunting website and order a custom configuration with exactly the features you are looking for. But when the majority of the market space wants to walk into Wal-Mart and leave with a machine that they have no expectation of dissecting, much less understanding, it's not a 'knee-jerk business move'--it's a calculated and intelligent understanding of the future of the business.
And on a side note, gross revenue comparisons between HP and Dell are fairly irrelevant--it's like saying that Target is more successful than Best Buy because Target reports higher revenues. They may sell some similar products, but that doesn't mean a dollar-for-dollar comparison says what you seem to imply.
First, notice that Dell has also upgraded almost all of its standard system configurations to machine meeting the reccomended specs from Microsoft to run Vista, yet base configuration prices have not risen by much.
Second, and more importantly, note that the $45 upgrade it actually a downgrade---any machine shipping with Windows XP Media Center receives a free upgrade (less $10 for S&H) to Vista Home Premium. Any system shipping with XP Pro receives a free upgrade to Vista Business. The $45 is for Vista Home Basic.
Honestly, I have yet to experience a set-top PVR that isn't equally complicated to manage. Perhaps its just poor, patched-up functionality in cable company boxes, but once it was replaced with a Myth box (recently transplanted into a beautiful Antec Fusion) the headaches are gone.
I'm intrigued, too, that Boutin believes a lack of software is contributing to the low-demand for media pcs--"the geeks seem uninterested"?
Perhaps the biggest failure has nothing to do with demand or equipment, but that readily available video content from the Internet has yet to live up to the basic quality available from your local cable company pirates. Provide HD streams off of CNN or full-NTSC resolution tv shows in iTunes, and I think the world would be seeing things differently.
Slashdot Mirror
I love to read articles and comments by individuals who make up figures to support their assumptions, but those that rely on general myths are even more fun. "Widescreens are smaller LCD surface area, so companies save money"--companies don't get to purchase LCD panels the way you purchase flooring for your kitchen, and in truth, the cost of a square inch of a widescreen LCD panel is higher than it is on standard aspect ratio panels. "we should stick to letting the consumer decide"--the thing is that the consumers do decide, but if you think that the individual consumer should have the power to influence the entire industry, then you probably still believe the US is a democracy. Crack open that civics textbook and let us know when you figure it out. The vast majority of notebook consumers do want widescreens, which is why we have them. It wasn't just a fun change for the industry, though it did happen to reduce the average size of notebooks by virtue of the fact that the chassis are smaller, etc. "most DVDs are non-widescreen"--not sure where this one came from, but I'd like someone to explain it to me. This was likely true of the VHS era, but the prevalance of the DVD format and the soaring popularity of HD formats has turned standard aspect ratio film into a feature offered only for holdovers who 'can't stand the black bars'. In any case, I hated my widescreen notebook screen because of the available resolution in a standard 15" monitor. Just picked up a new 'high def' Dell XPS notebook with 1920x1200 resolution in 15.4" and life is wonderful in mobile dev again. As another reader pointed out, however, I dock whenever possible and use 2x24" widescreen LCDs, which is by far the preferred mode. Screen space is king, but efficient use of the space available makes widescreen a smarter choice.
The assumption that less build-to-order means less share is laughable--was that a Carson Daily joke or an attempt to educate the masses?
The consumer end of the PC market is buying more and more laptops, and they are doing that purchasing in retail outlets in increasing numbers. The trend makes sense, considering the laptop is not only being commoditized, but also is a seemingly necessary fashion statement--"I want my notebook to say something about me and my personality." It is a touch and feel product, and as the consumer market space moves further and further into portables, a direct model business appeals to a much smaller part of the market.
What's more, the move actually gives consumers greater choice in how they buy in addition to the ability to impact exactly what they buy. A customer, like myself and likely many of you, who wants a high degree of specificity, retains the ability to pick up the phone or hit up the daunting website and order a custom configuration with exactly the features you are looking for. But when the majority of the market space wants to walk into Wal-Mart and leave with a machine that they have no expectation of dissecting, much less understanding, it's not a 'knee-jerk business move'--it's a calculated and intelligent understanding of the future of the business.
And on a side note, gross revenue comparisons between HP and Dell are fairly irrelevant--it's like saying that Target is more successful than Best Buy because Target reports higher revenues. They may sell some similar products, but that doesn't mean a dollar-for-dollar comparison says what you seem to imply.
First, notice that Dell has also upgraded almost all of its standard system configurations to machine meeting the reccomended specs from Microsoft to run Vista, yet base configuration prices have not risen by much.
Second, and more importantly, note that the $45 upgrade it actually a downgrade---any machine shipping with Windows XP Media Center receives a free upgrade (less $10 for S&H) to Vista Home Premium. Any system shipping with XP Pro receives a free upgrade to Vista Business. The $45 is for Vista Home Basic.
Honestly, I have yet to experience a set-top PVR that isn't equally complicated to manage. Perhaps its just poor, patched-up functionality in cable company boxes, but once it was replaced with a Myth box (recently transplanted into a beautiful Antec Fusion) the headaches are gone. I'm intrigued, too, that Boutin believes a lack of software is contributing to the low-demand for media pcs--"the geeks seem uninterested"? Perhaps the biggest failure has nothing to do with demand or equipment, but that readily available video content from the Internet has yet to live up to the basic quality available from your local cable company pirates. Provide HD streams off of CNN or full-NTSC resolution tv shows in iTunes, and I think the world would be seeing things differently.