"It is not the most effective screen size"
No one seems to have informed Apple.. or their customers.
Ultrabooks are likely to be a flop with hard-up shoppers until prices fall by at least 25 per cent, market watcher Gartner has warned. Reports today from the Far East indicate that early adoption rates of the nascent platform have fallen below expectations: Acer and Asustek are reported to have slashed orders with their …
No one seems to have informed Apple.. or their customers.
Apple buyers value style over substance, ease of use over broad functionality, so Air flies off the shelves cause you can impress somebody with it.
Everyone else wants functionality first in a PC. So as long "ultrabooks" offer much less functionality than say a Sony VAIO SA sub-notebook model, yet cost the same or more money, they're won't be moving fast enough to save anybody's balance sheet.
Like that Samsung Ultrabook, Not even a 13.3" screen, bad resolution, no DVD, no GPU, yet it costs 1500 euros. I really don't care that its made out of Duralium, whatever that is, if it looks to me like a super slim netbook with an overblown processor for an amount of money I can invest much more effectively elsewhere.
I'm not surprised that only apple fans will buy stuff like this at the sort of prices we used to pay for laptops
they still run Windows.
Unlike a Mac Air owners, your system still looks like everyone-else's while operating *and* it probably has the same rubbish-looking logo on it too.
Now, show me an ultrabook with a gigabyte mobo in it which can run all sorts of OS's and you may have a winner, although you still might be as convincing as a status symbol as "that furniture sale those rich people don't want you to know about."
WTF is an ultrabook supposed to be, anyway? How is it different from a netbook?
It make Intel more money.
as far as i can tell an ultra book is exactly the same as a laptop but thinner and about twice the price. the lack of buyers is just proof that people arn't as daft as Intel hopes.
...the same way a laptop is different from a netbook?
How about reading the specs at least...?
The problem is not the screen size, 13" is fine. The main problem is cost.
The ASUS is £999 for that you get a touchpad with buggy drivers and a screen with 0 contrast.
All of the other ultrabooks are shipping with 1366x768 screens.
Most people aren't going to buy a 1st generation product, everyone in the know is waiting for Ivy Bridge.
The final issue is that they aren't available to buy. The only model I could find in stock near me to look at was the 13" ASUS, couldn't find any of the other offerings.
Exactly. 13" is a great screen size for a lightweight laptop that you can take anywhere: it fits in a large handbag or a small backpack and is very usable. 15" starts getting too large to easily carry around. This is exactly why I went from 15" to 13" when I replaced my laptop. If I want a large screen, I use the desktop.
But ultrabooks right now look like skinny netbooks to me, bad resolution, no GPU, limited connectivity.
There are sub-notebooks weighing less with much better features. Ok, so they're not quite as skinny... why should I care about that???
I've never had a problem fitting a sub-notebook in my bag.
If these "ultrabooks" pull even on prices and features, I might think, "ok, its very thin, fine, as long as it doesn't break in half...",
But thinness will never be the reason I buy something... these are computers, not women :P
Somebody got paid to tell them that? f*ck, I would have done it for free...
for a lesser bit of kit and it will not sell.
This has been proven by the many android tablets that no one wants at £500 but may pay £250 for.
Premium prices do not mean everyone wants one.
Price sensibly and a portion of the market will buy them.
For the price, why wouldn't people just buy the Apple laptop and install Windows on it.
"For the price, why wouldn't people just buy the Apple laptop and install Windows on it"
I'm not the greatest apple fan in the world but I'd have to agree, though I'd be tempted to dual boot with Ubuntu instead of Windoze. If you shop around, you can get the 13" Air for less than an ultrabook.
However putting more money into Apple's vast cave of gold and jewels may just be a step too far. Though will have to see what happens now Smaug has gone!
Perhaps because for the same price Apple laptops are either nonexistent ($700-800) or downright uber-shitty deal, sporting Intel's PoS integrated video chips ($1k+)?
Personally i'm waiting for Ivy Bridge before i'd consider an ultra book, happy with my 6 month old Dell for now.
...as its prices make up to 30% of an Ultrabook, according to Acer, in response to Otellini's (usual) bald-faced lying about Intel being so cheap that they could be giving their mojo away for free but it wouldn't bring down the prices. Aye... how about lowering your 60-70% profit rate instead of talking BS about your system builders, Mr Otellini?
The manufacturers are shooting themselves in the foot for trying to match Apple's Apple tax pricing. People take a look at a regular Apple laptop and see it's over-priced compared to a Windows laptop with the same hardware but then see the Windows based ultrabook and see it's the same as the Macs. Then they scratch their head.
I've recently replaced my laptop and put some serious though into getting an ultrabook, as they're so pretty. In the end, I couldn't rationalise spending 2-3 times the money on something just down to looks.
There's the difference. Apple don't have any offerings with the same OS going for £300. PC's do.
Unless the ultrabooks can offer some unique and useful functionality (not just some skin or dock app sat on windows) then they're going to have to reduce the price.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017