Status of Laptop Industry - My disappointments

Ha ha...

The way the economy is currently is the exact reason that notebook upgradeability is so wrong for the industry and for the country.

In X years from now, I don't want the same notebook on the same platform that I just bought today - no matter how many things I can upgrade in it.

It will still be a throw away computer that just happens to be fast(er) - but that's it.

Like I mentioned before, the notebook will be hot, with poor battery life and will physically be bigger than a model that is not 'upgradeable' (including it's huge honking power supply to support possible 'future' upgrades). Compared to spending the same money for an updated platform, with all the new technologies that implies, upgrading past a certain point is simply - pointless. Just like in a desktop, RAM, HD and O/S upgrades are where most people should draw the line - if they go over that line it almost always is a waste compared to getting a whole new system with all the benefits the new platform will bring (including warranty).

A great example of what I am talking about is the mac mini article on Anand's site:

See:
Apple Mac mini Review (Mid 2010) - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News


He compares the mac mini to a five year old (desktop) G5 tower and although he limits them both to 2GB RAM the mac mini is the clear winner at a sixth of the cost of the G5. (At 4GB the mac mini is 44% faster in the Photoshop benchmark compared to 2GB).

So, you all can keep dreaming about an upgradeable notebook, but if and when they do come to market just remember that the manufacturer's will still want their piece of your wallet when it comes to upgrade and at that point - when push comes to shove - I'm betting that instead of upgrading to mediocre performance for actual REAL cash, you too will buy a new notebook once again.

 

In fact, what would be bad for the country is your logic to continue to produce computers with planned obsolescence; and the massive pile of 24 month old computers under our current paradigm of what is out of date.

Granted, any amount of computer upgrading does have it's limits. But to have to toss your current computer and go out and buy totally new one just to get a superspeed port or the latest and most efficient HD LED screen just doesn't make sense. By now, those types of upgrades should be a part of every design, and common place.

 

have to agree with tilleroftheearth.

upgrades are for those who are impatient.

 

that may be true if you are just doing normal stuff.
but for people who use system intensive applications (and require the portability of a laptop) for work and business, upgrades can be quite essential.
it just seems greedy and wasteful on the part of manufacturers to almost require a new laptop to get these upgrades.
so if usb 3.0 is important to you, will you buy a new laptop?

 

Greed? Are we talking about it like it's a bad thing here? Market economy is based on greed. It drives all innovation and advance. Business greed keeps the new products coming, and consumer greed keeps prices down.

The profit margin of large laptop companies like Dell and HP are already in the single digit percentages. If they sold you one and you don't need to buy another for the next 10 years because you keep upgrading it, they have two choices: either triple the price ($3000 Inspiron?) or go out of business.

 

combined post

 

GM (and a few others) had to learn this the hard way. And it was they who payed the biggest price for their lack of market innovation.

Typical American entrepreneurial thinking. Again I take you to the automobile industry and their "designed" obsolescence. GM used to build their cars to fall apart around the 4 year mark. Just about the time they told us we needed to buy a new one. It was they who created the model for buying a new car every 4 years. And they who are today paying the biggest price for resting on their laurel and believing that the consumers were to dumb to see what was happening. that colossal greed. Good thing we have other models like that of the Japanese to show us different.

Incidentally, how may cell phones do you have sitting in a drawer? Marketing is a grand scheme isn't it?

 

yeah i guess marketing bs does work on some poor wretches

 

Don't forget to blame trade restrictions. Depending on where you are in the world, certain foreign (from their POV) hardware/software simply cannot be legally sold.

 

Krane,

You're getting off topic, really!

This is not the automobile industry which has peaked and matured some fifty years ago. This is the changing by the minute 'Tech' industry which although it may not seem to change 'by the minute' once you start working on a new platform it sure seems like you've wasted a lot of minutes thinking that the 'old tech' was good enough.

You and the people who support a fully upgradeable notebook platform are not cutting edge - you simply want to configure the notebook exactly the way you want it. While this may seem optimum, it is only so until the next platform jump comes along.

And, no! I don't want manufacturer's hands tied to last year's decisions/compromises just so that what they offer today is compatible with the garbage of yesteryear.

As to the 'pile' of old computers - have you ever considered donating them to schools, non-profits and/or third world countries? I never said that they don't work anymore; just that for me, I'm losing money by continuing to use them.

So, maybe this clears this up for you how this is bad for the country? Your way; backwards compatibility above all else. My way; (always) the best tech available Now (with 'now' being a constantly moving target).

The point is that backward compatibility will stunt growth, not give you better and cheaper options for a computer you may want to keep for a decade or so.

 

The difference here being there's no Japanese laptop makers that produce laptops at the same price point but lasting 10 years. If GM had no competitors (or its competitors were doing the same thing as them) then they would have had nothing to fear. The market hasn't developed it to that point yet, so the point I'm making is, people are in the tech industry to make a living, not to deliver the best product technology can give you.

Planned product cycles is almost a necessity. Look at the land line wired networks. Companies like Nortel built massive numbers of optical fibre lines and switches, then found themselves out of business because they met the market demand for the next 50 years using five years' worth of sales. The market is such a complex thing that it's impossible for us to just make some generalizations on a random forum like this in a few sentences. Whatever irregularities or illogical things we can observe usually also has a reason for them existing. There's always another side to everything.

Have you thought about the processor industry? Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, ATI.. you can't actually think that their engineering team sits down together every half a year and say, alright, time to have another major breakthrough. What they do is, they'll keep on their research, maybe have a new architecture / fab process etc every now and then, and for the time in between, release their new tech in regularly timed steps. Sure, if along comes a company that literally releases the most powerful chips the world has ever seen the second they figure out how to make one, then Intel and AMD will take a huge hit. But that will also cannibalize the entire future of this industry.

Lastly - bringing up Japan doesn't help the case here. Japanese people have an entirely different culture from North Americans. Whereas North Americans will try to maximize profit (and their shareholders demand so), the Japanese people would actually view work as a way of living in itself. Just look at responses to the recent economic downturn - Japanese employers tried to save as many workers as possible (they think it's their duty to do so), while American employers just fired as many as they could. If you want GM to function like a Japanese car company, you can either somehow reflash your employees' "firmware" or implement centrally planned economy. Neither of which sounds good, no?

 

I would not consider myself doing 'normal stuff' with my systems.

My 'digital note book' is an i3, 8GB RAM, SSD based system that theoretically offers me a bullet-proof computer (bumps/shocks) and still allows me to 'play' with ALL my software in real-time. Did I make trade-offs with this unit? Yes! But, everything is a trade-off and this time, battery life was the big winner with this combination (U30JC) without sacrificing too much of anything else (although I do miss my eSata ports, I really have no need for them with a puny 100GB HD).

With CardBus and later ExpressCard, notebooks were able to expand their capabilities quite easily and effectively. If I needed USB 3.0, I am sure that an ExpressCard will be available soon (if it isn't already) - as long as I have that expansion port on my notebook.

The last desktop I upgraded (besides RAM, HD's and O/S) that made sense is a distant memory from 4 - 5 years ago - and even then the 'upgrade' did not last more than a few months - a new system/platform (Dual Core) thoroughly blew it out of the water. I don't see how a notebook can be made any more 'future-proof' than a desktop which is not size limited, nor is the heat/noise any real concern on the desktop if performance is the ultimate goal.

So, to answer your question; yes. I would buy a new notebook (because I don't have an expansion port on my current notebook) if I needed USB 3.0.

But along with the USB 3.0 goodness, I know I will be getting much more than just a bump in USB speed: I will be getting all the incremental improvements a new platform brings which no upgrade of individual components can provide economically (even if you upgrade ALL the components - the chassis/case is still so last year!).

 

I was content to discontinue my comments since my points were incontrovertible. However since you had to go and post this last statement, my silence can no longer be constrained. The ability to upgrade vastly out shadows any negatives to the contrary, nor is it the duty of the consumer to worry about corporate profit. In addition, I find it curious that you would disagree. Only someone in the computer industry who stands to profit greatly would argue against a more flexible chassis design.

As for your attitude overall, you've created a theoretical limitation with no real point: As is much more common, you could buy a state-of-the-art notebook today, with four USB 2.0 ports for example. And tomorrow the virtual same notebook comes out redesigned with all superspeed ports sending your grand notebook to immediate obsolescence.

Another real world example I could give was in my OS switch from Vista to W7:

Since Windows was preparing to release W7 just prior to my purchase last August, HP offered it as a no cost upgrade when it became available. For me, that was an immediate selling point, where otherwise I would have postponed my purchase. Without some measure of upgradeability, I would never buy a notebook (other than a netbook) right now. The market is just to much in flux with ports, screens etc. Granted, I know this is always the case with technology, but not always at this level, and not always with this great a variety. Since laptops have now surpassed desktops in sales, they should at least approximate their upgradeability to keep things fair. My position is the only thing that seem to be isolated from an increase due to the continuing fluctuation of the market, is my salary.


p.s.

In all fairness, I get your point. However, it in no way makes up for the huge loss to the consumer, nor do it account for the excessive disparity in costs or corporate profit. It's time consumers wake up.

 

I think the big difference between his and your view is the POV on the valuation and permanence of a laptop. For some, laptops need to be upgradeable or at least have some ability to access an industry-wide improvement, while others buy laptops and see them as fixed configurations that can never be updated, aside from perhaps memory or hard drive upgrades.

For people transitioning from desktops, laptops are very constraining and there's little to no room to swap out components or upgrade them. For former desktop builders and many enthusiasts on this forum, and especially this subforum, it's not so bad. Everything but the motherboard and soldered GPU can be upgraded or swapped out, even if it requires complete dismantling. It's unfortunate that tiller's last desktop upgrade was ineffectual, but that's part of the desktop upgrade game - wait for new tech or upgrade now for the best current performance - while laptop upgrades generally fall into the category of eeking out the best components within a given generation of tech, with no real ability to inherently gain the advantages of new tech. (I'm using inherently to mean within the laptop itself, sans addon cards or external drives.)

*edit*

As to the point on flexible chassis design, that's subject to some extent to both market forces and engineering constraints. The consumer desire for a slim, compact, lightweight chassis results in a small footprint, purpose-built laptop motherboard rather than an expandable desktop motherboard. Although a chassis with swappable motherboards is technically feasible (and do exist in white-box form), they're big and bulky, waste space, and aren't popular with the general market. There's no incentive for OEMs to make upgradeable laptops when only a small percentage would actually upgrade the motherboard rather than toss the machine and purchase the next new shiny tech.

 

You know what I don't like about laptops? The laptop owners that launch into long-winded, often amusing speeches about the status of the industry that quickly start to become personal little vendettas against individual members, dividing what is once a united community like NBR into various separate factions, sowing chaos and discord.

Honestly? I love my laptops (HDX16t, and a 1005PR) and even though they are not perfect, I appreciate them for what they are, and what they do for me, and I take good care of them. Despite their faults, I would MUCH prefer to have them than not have them at all.

Why don't we all just get along?

Mr. Mysterious

 

I think this makes the point of possibility that when technology tops off for most common computer jobs(read: people buy much less laptops because what they have is already good enough) one of solutions to manufacturers is to be able to upgrade small parts of them to continue to have a bit more business. I am not sure if that will be possible with current management but in future for example like in car industry recall but for upgrade reasons, manufacturer X calls all models of type X to be upgraded from usb 3.0 to 4.0 and other options at certain fee.

 

You're comparing recalls to upgrades, but that's not apple to oranges. Laptop manufacturers already do recalls for defects/safety issues. There's little incentive for manufacturers in either market to deal with the whims of individual consumers when an aftermarket already exists and 3rd parties who will perform the work are already in place. The manufacturer might do some maintenance/warranty work, but going beyond that to another market is a wholly different headache.

 

Woah! That's some pretty strong language, don't you think?

United in our love for innovation and technological advancement in computers. Not necessarily for how it's brought to the market. After all, we don't all own the same brand of computer with the exact same configurations do we? And in case you're don't realize it, debates are a part of our society even at the highest and most educated level. As disagreements go, I'd say this one has been most civil.

Just because you prefer a Mac to a PC doesn't mean I won't still sit at the same table as you. No!...wait!!

 

well said, agree 100%
i still would like a standard "form factor" like desktop pcs have (atx)
while this will still undoubtedly change in time as technology advances, it would still be nice to be able to buy a 3rd party motherboard for your laptop supporting newer ram/cpu and gpu. the tradeoffs however are as you stated.

 

i agree, chipset/motherboard swapping in a laptop would be a pita. however other more mundane components should be upgradeable, of course limited by the chipset design.
my sager for example, has an easily accessible internal panel allowing the user to swap hdd's, cpu's, gpu's, ram, etc. its not something undoable. however many manufacturers build their laptops to be purposely 'unupgradeable', even putting limited component support via bios.
to me it seems like the height of negative consumerism to throw out your old laptop to get something as simple as gpu or a port upgrade.
i look through this subforum and the most common threads i see are 'can i upgrade my cpu' and 'can i upgrade my gpu' so it does seem like many people would want a certain degree of upgrade ability instead of buying a new unit altogether.

 

But only in maybe 1 of 100 threads do you see someone even ponder the question of swapping a motherboard. Probably fewer than 3-4% of the computer using population even considers the possibility of jumping to another generation of technology, regardless of whether it's a laptop or a desktop. I imagine OEMs could bolt/weld most motherboards to the chassis and the vast majority of users would never notice a thin since it's not a part that gets replaced often, even under warranty. It's frankly a problem noone but individuals who bother to post on a computer forum would ever give a damn about, and it's a pretty tiny percentage of the market.

As for BIOS limiting, I consider it a really good idea. As an OEM, I wouldn't like the idea of Joe User being able to tweak voltage settings, thermal control, or RAM timings because the Yahoo! Answers said it would be a good idea. If Joe User wants to play with his computer, let him buy his own motherboard to tinker with, not the one I would have to cover under warranty.

Regarding machine tossing, I really mean people who get a new machine every 2 or even 3 years and get rid of the old one, whether it's given away or sold. I think THAT is the height of negative consumerism. Not just having the new thing, but needing to have it as soon as it comes out. I know more than a few people who would rather buy a new computer than have me try to fix/maintain/clean it up, or, god forbid, reformat it. No, no, it's much easier to plunk down $600 for a cheap laptop and replace it another 2-3 years instead of taking care of it. I mean, computers are just so cheap now, right? Why go for a quality, durable computer that you take care of when you can get a cheap, fragile computer that you can treat like a beater because it's cheaper than your iPad?

 

woofer00,

I can see someone getting a new machine every 2 or 3 years if they really need it (as opposed to just 'want' - which is what I assume you mean).

But the fact that you can get a new computer for $300 to $600 (BRAND NEW), with warranty and more than likely better and faster than your old computer is why an 'upgradeable' computer is so out of sync with the reality of 2010.

Krane wants consumers to 'wake up', but I think they already have. So have the manufacturers; if they really thought there was money to be made in a fully upgradeable computer, trust me, they wouldn't ask me, you or Krane if they should offer it - they already would have.

I had to chuckle with Krane who said that laptops should catch up with desktops and finally be fully upgradeable - they are upgradeable enough already - and besides, this isn't 1985 when a $1,200 to $2,000 upgrade was worth it on a $4,000 system - this is the days of cheap cpu power and a market that benefits a company most by going after the most units moved (to an admittedly least common denominator type of user).

Even if I could have upgraded my $15K ThinkPAD of 1989 with the awesome keyboard and ergonomics it had that have yet to be touched, I would still be inclined to at least try these current 'throw away' computers and I'm sure if I tried that original ThinkPAD again, I would be laughing at it now - no matter how much I could have theoretically upgraded it (and I shudder to think at what cost).

Again, everything is a trade-off. The current trade-offs seem pretty good to this old geezer.

When I buy a new system (notebook or desktop), it has to not only meet my current and foreseeable needs, but it also has to perform at a noticeable level above the system it is replacing.

When those two criteria are met, I don't care if a new model comes out the second I hit the buy button - I will only consider a new system when those two criteria are surpassed above what I currently have. And if that means I buy two new systems months apart (but get a measurable boost in productivity by doing so) that is just good business practice.

Anything else is looking back into the murky past and wishing it was the current future. Bleh!

A point most seem to miss on this topic is that a notebook is essentially proprietary. If you gather the exact same components and let a hundred people build a portable (notebook) system for you there will only be a few that are worth carrying around and using. Why?

Because the design of the chassis is just as important as the components used. That is what we're paying for when we choose one brand or another: the ability and expertise of a company in making the whole, greater than the sum of the parts.

With an upgradeable notebook, the design expertise (and I'm not talking looks here; I'm talking ergonomics, efficient heat control and durability) is what will become the 'lowest common denominator' and that will be to the detriment of people like me who need/want the lightest, fastest and longest running (on battery power) computers for the least amount of money.

Fully upgradeable notebooks? No thanks.

Let me decide to keep my money, spend it on a much smaller and lighter chassis and/or let me put the computing power of all my previous machines in a unit I can hold up with one hand while not scorching myself.

I would love to be proved wrong - but living in 2010 the future seems bleak looking back to over 30 years of how desktops 'do it'.

 

Well reasoned, my friend.

And may whatever omniscient being strike me down where I stand with the most powerful of the universal forces before I even have a whisper of a shadow of a thought....of ever buying anything Apple-related. *carefully fails to mention his old iPod, but that was before Apple became the very image of corporate greed that he has always hated...*

Mr. Mysterious

 

Ha ha! Lol...


I too feel the same way!

Not only do they not do what I need/want when they're working - but when they don't work I have to find a 'genius' to fix it.

Besides - all apple stuff runs way too hot - thats just asking for trouble - and a sign of bad engineering.

 

I was just comparing for the propose to show that isn't something totally off.
If laptops continue to be sold at current frequency there is no need to do that, it was conditional just in case typical operative live of laptops are extended.