Why I returned my T420 after 1 week

You're basically assuming what you set out to prove, that it's not profitable. I doubt very much that that's true. I don't see how it would cost much in terms of R&D to simply slap an extra option into a few model lines; then the bean counters could have their cheaper 16:9 screen, and they could turn a profit selling the rest of us 16:10 screens at a markup. This is exactly what they do with scads of other things: hard drives, wireless cards, processors, etc.

If they can source 16:10 screens, they can sell them at a profit-- and nothing forces them to offer only one screen resolution per model. Remember in the not too distant past when you could get a T61 in 4:3 and widescreen form factors? And that involved a whole different case. This wouldn't.

 

after going to the Lenovo channel partner event last week. It is clear from their presentation we individual purchasers are mere drop in the ocean for ThinkPad purchase. Lenovo will change specification and design when large corporation require them, and they are consulted. Regarding price many customers purchase laptops in bulk and they bid on total price, when each machine have a cost difference of 40 dollars x 5000 machines, it will shift the overall balance of thing in favour of competitors.

 

Many of which are interchangeable.

Screens aren't. Or at least they're not as interchangeable as the parts you listed. First, you're limited to the set of panels that are electrically and physically compatible with the form factor. That right there is just a handful of panels. Then you're limited to ones that are cost-effective. That's an even smaller set. Then you need to design the top part of the chassis to accommodate either form factor. That means that you're probably looking at a whole new lid assembly plus a slightly inferior appearance for one of the two groups (16:10 or 16:9).

After that you're faced with paying a price premium for small runs of whatever parts are needed for the less-popular option, plus the overhead of keeping those parts in stock for a minimum of five years. And heaven help you if any of those models are IWS eligible, as you'd then have to keep parts in stock at or available to service centers around the world, also for several years. (You wanna know why the X300 cost three grand, and why the LCD costs several hundred dollars? Stuff like that.)

lead_org's right on here.

As an example, have you ever come across a T40-series machine with some weird config? (Such as Intel graphics + IPS, or a T43p made long after T43p sales ceased?) That's because large purchasers (like: US government-large) absolutely can and do get special treatment. When you're buying several thousand units at a time, the rules are a bit different.

So yes, if the DHS went to Lenovo and said "We'd like to order several thousand notebooks with 16:10 screens, plus fleet-wide support, oh, and some ThinkCentres too", you can bet that there would suddenly be a bunch of machines with 16:10 screens coming out of Wistron/Compal's factories. But an individual? Nope.

 

Yes, I already addressed these arguments. I don't think that it costs much at all to research and develop a lid/bezel. They already designed an entire chassis for the T61 and sold lots of both. They could charge a premium for the 16:10 option. People want it. There's a business case for it.

As for "electrically and physically compatible with the form factor"? Seems like empty words; I dare say that would be pretty much all of them. Electrically compatible? Seriously? And did you realize that the 16:9 option in the T420 already causes a greatly "inferior appearance" due to the ugly bezel? The 16:10 would look better.

Passed on to the customer. So, in short, there's no reason whatsoever not to do it.

I can stop you right there. It's obvious that they would sell at least several thousand 16:10 T420s alone. That's a drop in the bucket. In fact, a great many Thinkpad users still yearn for 4:3 screens.

Again, you're simply assuming what you set out to prove: that there's insufficient demand for 16:10 screens. And, of course, when that notion is debunked for lack of any support and the other reasons, you and others can fall back to claiming that Lenovo's hand is forced by the screen manufacturers, a completely non-complementary argument if there ever was one. You can say these things; they just don't add up to a real argument.

 

@Iucounu, did you pay the full price for your T420i? And if you are not willing to pay the full price, why do you assume that other people will pay the full price or significantly more for a 16:10 when the panels are just the same in terms of quality?

http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/computers/apples-dunked-for-just-115-20110906-1jvzs.html <--- what large IT customers are like in terms of financial spending for IT equipment procurement. This is not even their own money they are spending, imagine how stingy the organisation would be if it was their own money.

 

Personally I don't care for 16:10 or 16:9, but an IPS should definitely be an option.

Would love a 900p or 1080p 13"-14" Thinkpad with IPS display.

 

Maybe I don't understand the question. I paid what everyone pays, including extra money for some upgrades, including the screen. I would have paid more to upgrade to a 16:10 screen of an appropriate resolution. I am representative of buyers who would pay to upgrade to 16:10. Lenov made a profit from my purchase, as they could from an appropriately priced 16:10 upgrade option. Am I missing something here?

You seem to be misunderstanding or completely sidestepping the issue. The issue is about screen resolution and aspect ratio, not so much pixel-level quality. Plenty of people buy the T420, the bread-and-butter model, even without IPS options currently available (note that just like the 16:10 option that's currently missing, that doesn't imply that they don't want them or wouldn't pay for them).

Really, you'd be just as well off arguing that Lenovo shouldn't offer IPS in the T420, because they haven't.

 

It sounds like empty words until you try doing a slew of panel upgrades on your own.

I've done many LCD replacements, often with screens that were never offered as an option for a given ThinkPad.

It's not just as simple as finding a panel that's the right diagonal size. Is it an LVDS panel? How many pins? What's the connector design? JAE? Hirose? What's the pinout? What're the timings? What are its power requirements?

A lot of times you can work around having a bunch of panels with different answers to those questions, but that adds to the cost. If you have two panels with different pinouts, different connectors, or different controller board positions, then suddenly you need two different cable FRUs. You also need to design the planar connector to be able to accommodate either cable. If you have different power requirements, you need to take that into consideration too -- and that's going to require more electronics.

Then there are the physical aspects. Some panels are thicker than others, which means that any design that counts on the presence or absence of slack space to accommodate external pressure (such as the T410 lid design) will need to be tweaked. How about the mounting holes? The panels *usually* all have mount positioning, but not always (ex: some of the 12-inch Boe Hydis AFFS panels don't offer the same mounting design as most of the TN panels with otherwise-identical form factors.)

I'm not an EE, but those are just some of the issues that I've faced when modding various ThinkPads. I doubt it's an exhaustive list.

There's a difference between selling thousands of units to a company with which you have an existing supply contract and trying to sell individual units to several thousand consumers. A big difference.

Oh, I can do that. Actually, it'll be easier to let Lenovo explain it themselves:

Now that you've read the post from which that quote comes, perhaps you'd care to share what you know about Lenovo's business that they don't?

 

Discussing your experiences with upgrades to unintended LCD panels is completely irrelevant, of course, to a discussion of Lenovo providing a 16:10 option.

I simply refuse to believe, without some sort of valid evidence, that the R&D cost for providing a 16:10 panel option would be so severe as to make the option too expensive to turn a profit. Until some sort of actual evidence is shown for that, it's just an empty, self-serving guess. In the real world, the way it would go is Lenovo would do the R&D work, including sourcing the appropriate panels. When the time came they'd submit an order. Each panel would have a certain cost. The cost would get passed on to the buyer, plus a profit.

I'm not buying it. There's no need for 15,000 confirmed orders of a new product before R&D begins. Otherwise, only features asked for by large companies would make it into laptops. There's no way that large companies asked specifically for 16:9 screens when the change was allegedly forced by the screen manufacturers. There are so many fallacies contained in the post you linked, and the way you're trying to use it, that I simply don't see value in pursuing all of them.

What might be necessary, in the absence of confirmed orders, is a market projection of some type. Seems like they could start by looking at IPS sales numbers from the past, and current IPS sales figures on the X220 IPS vs. non-IPS options. You attempt to make it seem as if Lenovo hasn't enough information in the absence of large advance orders, which is ridiculous.

There's such a thing as a "self-serving justification"; your chosen link qualifies, since it's aimed at simply getting complaints off the company's back. Nor does waggling a finger in the vague direction of screen manufacturers make sense. Nothing would force the screen manufacturers to cut different sized screens during the same production run; the equipment must exist, have existed in the recent past, or be adjustable to cut the different sized screens; either the manufacturer cuts TV and smaller laptop screens at the same time-- where they're already suffering the supposed loss-- or they don't, showing that 16:10 runs could be combined too; etc. It's basically a bunch of hooey that doesn't explain why Lenovo can't offer a 16:10 option. Nor does a blog post from a Lenovo employee suffice as proof of anything.

 

So get a petition going if you can to show Lenovo how many people are willing to buy the 16:10 version of the T4x0 laptops (same type of TN LCD quality), and how much more they are willing to pay. Then go to the bank and get letter of credit going to ensure that those people whom are willing to buy these laptop won't renege on their words.

Also, there is no major R&D costs, since it is already developed and it is an off the shelf parts (even if there are limited supply of them). What you are asking is basically for Lenovo to take a gamble on a parts specification that some people may want. For Lenovo this sort of niche market is a gamble, and they would probably charge you a 100 to 200 dollars for the effort (they will charge for the financial risks of offering these parts), i highly doubt someone is going to fork out that much when they are buying a $700 or 800 Thinkpad.

I would rather Lenovo put in higher quality LCD technology then the one they are using, rather than wasting time over 16:10 versus 16:9.

Most large companies ask for price and hardware spec like CPU, hdd, ram, resolution, but not LCD format.

Also, parts cost depends on quantity ordered. An order of 1000 will be different to the order of 1 million. It is not that Lenovo can't but rather it is more of why should they when they can attract a large customer base by offering a cheaper pricing. Sure they will rough up some customers through the format change, but these people will still buy the Thinkpads. In the end you can't keep everyone happy, and when some customers are better off you will bound to make some customers worse off.

Lenovo is all about 'lean', if something can't be moved in high volume then it is a gamble that they are not willing to take, they want market share and revenue.. this is how they keep higher management happy and the shareholders happy. Obviously there are market projection but that is a guess, if you guessed wrong then you won't on the higher management's good book and if you get it wrong several time then you probably need to find another job. In these sort of market climate it is not always easy to find a comparable job in the industry with the same pay, when people know that you lost your former employer lot of market share or revenue through wrong projection models.

 

Well Lenovo knows better than I do about how their design/marketing/sales process works, and since you clearly know better than they do, I guess I'm out of my league.

 

Some major differences between us seem to be that I don't think that big corporations are infinitely wise, that I don't generally accept uncorroborated blog entries as gospel, and that when I see widespread complaints about a model line, I see them as signs of missed opportunities.

ETA: One thing that makes the "they need large advance corporate orders" line of argumentation so silly is that Lenovo has shown an increasing trend to release whole ThinkPad lines without large advance corporate orders, aimed squarely at consumers on a budget (Edge, x1xx). Throw in the past and current of offering things like IPS screens, and the successful T61 which offered both widescreen and 4:3 options at the same time necessitating different form factors, and I don't see how anyone can make such arguments with a straight face.

 

I don't think they're infinitely-wise. But I do think that actions speak louder than words, and purchasing trends -- at least those that I'm in a position to observe directly -- certainly seem to support my assertion that businesses care more about getting cheap laptops than getting a particular type screen. In the case of Lenovo, yes, I tend to think they know their target market better than you or I do.

As far as accepting a blog post "as gospel"... well... with all due respect, I tend to believe something written by a Lenovo employee more than something by a random forum poster, yes. Perhaps I'm a fool for doing so. I'll take that risk.

Ah. See there's where we disagree. Now it might be because I'm a cynical , but I tend to think that complaints on forums don't really mean much. Ever since I first read a couple good rants on Usenet, I've been of a mind that you should take complaints/rants on the Internet with a grain of salt: an annoying flaw becomes a "complete disaster", an unpleasant support call becomes a "tech support nightmare", etc. So too it is with features. I've seen plenty of threads here and elsewhere discussing the move towards wide-screen displays. Is there a missed opportunity there? Perhaps. But when Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony, and Toshiba all seem to ignore said forum threads, I can't help but think that maybe it's because they've done the research and figured it's not worth it for them.

I assume you're referring to the brief period during which a modified version of T60 chassis design was offered for a limited selection of T61 notebooks as remaining stock was used up. If that's the case, well, the answer seems pretty simple: they determined it would be cheaper to modify the T60 design, use up all of their 4:3 components, and at the same time shift to the design that they'd use for future generations. Plus they got to spin it as "offering the customer more choice". Seems like a pretty good business decision to me.

But what the hell do I know? I'm neither an MBA nor a computer engineer. I can speak from my experience writing software though, and will say that often what people complain about with a product and what they are actually willing to pay for are often in substantial disagreement. I can think of a few times where a feature seemed like an obvious addition given apparent demand -- but after looking in to what it would take to implement it, and what the people requesting it were willing to pay it no longer seemed like a sure thing.

 

Thank you for ceding the field on the supposed need for 15,000 orders on new features/models (such an arbitrary figure in any event with no justification, in the face of many Lenovo products produced without such advanced orders). You mention Apple, which of course still produces 16:10 notebooks.

Your whole argument boils down to: whatever Lenovo does must be right, as they cannot make a mistake; whatever Lenovo chooses not to do, should not or cannot be done, witness the fact that they did not do it; whatever any Lenovo employee says is proof of its own truth; and whatever you personally believe based on your experiences writing software translates directly to designing and selling notebook computers.

 

Apple produces a lot of things, and it is the only consumer orientated computer company that design its own hardware and OS software, now how many large consumer orientated computer companies do that?

Whatever Lenovo does is for profit maximisation and risk minimisation, from a shareholder's persepective that is the right thing, which may not always please every customer (existing or potential).

 

There you go again, with The Company Is Always Right By Definition. The fact that Lenovo has the goal of maximizing profits does not mean that they actually do so. In fact, like all big companies, they never do.

 

If Lenovo isn't maximizing profit, how do you account for their earnings reports? Sheer volume?

 

Apple now has 5 configurations of 16:10 displays (and 6 configs total, including the 11" MBA @ 1366x768):
-13" @ 1280x800 and 1440x900 (MBA)
-15" @ 1440x900 and 1680x1050
-17" @ 1920x1200

Lenovo currently has 10 displays (if I missed something, give me a break... and I've deliberately ignored the decimal points in measurements):
-11" @ 1366x768
-12" @ 1366x768, both TN and IPS
-13" @ 1366x768
-14" @ 1366x768 and 1600x900
-15" @ 1366x768, 1600x900 and 1920x1080
-17" @ 1600x900

Lenovo's range of offerings are too close in physical size, and have too many low-res displays -- they could easily ditch the 13", and the 14-15" @ 1366x768. Having five consecutive screen sizes is ridiculous. Notice how Apple leaves 2" gaps. That would help focus the components they need to source, and increase their buying power of the remaining components. Basically I'm suggesting the following:

-12" @ 1366x768, with 1600x900 option
-14" @ 1600x900
-15" @ 1600x900 and 1920x1080

If I was feeling especially strident today, I might even suggest ditching the 14" completely. Keep the 12" for portability and decent power, and the 15" as the beast.

 

So if a company doesn't want to maximise profit, what are they actually trying to do (this is like arguing most people going to work on their weekday are not trying to earn a living)? I know you would probably argue that earth is flat because that is what counters to what other people is saying, or that earth is in the center of solar system because it fits your logic better.

Instead of shooting down other people's comments, it would be nice to see proof on your counterpoints?

 

If they're not in the business to make money, they are not in business. Period. Unless you're a charity organization.

 

Quick intro: new user, first post here. I'm an IBM/Lenovo user for many years, a sysadmin and IT consultant for around 20 years and have specified/purchased Thinkpads for clients for many years.

I've watched these debates on another popular Thinkpad board for years as well. (Oh and do ya'll know someone already created an online petition about this back in 2010? It's here: BRING BACK 4:3 LAPTOPS! - Petition Spot )

While I personally agree that I'd like to see some better panels, (4:3 IPS or at least 16:10) I think ThinkRob is right on the money about the realities of offering such choices for mass-produced consumer/business items.

There are substantial costs around having to design for, build, stock and support any product variations, but when the product variation in question is a low-production niche item, the cost/ benefit is often not particularly worthwhile. (And just because I state something that disagrees with your pet Lenovo product desires does not automatically make me a corporate lackey or yes-man either)

Re: the list that thetoast posted of Apple/Lenovo screen options and someone else's comment about how Apple typically markets a very low variety of product choices - those are excellent points. Apple does not even put easily visible model numbers on most of their products, they have a very very non-typical marketing philosophy. (which in many ways boils down to: "YOU WILL BUY WHAT STEVE TELLS YOU TO BUY") They downplay the subtle differences because they just don't make that many variants.

So it makes sense that, especially given their traditional strengths in the design and media fields, they put a lot more emphasis than most PC manufacturers do into items like external industrial design and screen dynamics. And because they make few variations, may as well put decent screens in most of 'em. A LOT of people buy Apple products for "the look", and that look includes the screen.

BTW - one of the reasons many of the IBM/Lenovo faithful complain about the screens these days is because IBM absolutely DID formerly make nice Thinkpad screens - ie the 4:3 1400x1050 IPS screens they used to put on T43p's and T60s. Many owners of those are practically ready to take 'em to the grave.

And here's another reason why it's not practical to get rid of the low-resolution options: I've recently specified/purchased a couple of Thinkpads for clients with large, low-res screens for the very specific reason that the user's old eyes simply can't use the ultra-high res screens. Far better to do that than either A) use some hokey large-type theme that screws up the OS's usability, or B) run the screen in a low-res/non-native resolution that looks like total garbage. (but a lot of people do just that)

Once again - don't forget that if you make a niche product variant that also means that you've got to A) design for all the screen idiosyncracies which ThinkRob pointed out a few of, B) build 'em, C) stock 'em, D) train the support staff on 'em, E) stock the repair depots with spare parts (most of which will just sit there), etc etc etc.

Not that long ago Lenovo produced an all-singing/all-dancing high-end model (W700) with a mega IPS screen (two of 'em in fact, in some cases), and from what I gather, hardly anyone bought them.

And while some think the raw parts cost might suggest they could offer a nicer screen option in a more mass-market product like T420/T520/etc for perhaps a ~$50 premium, production/marketing/support realities generally dictate that it's likely that to break-even on such an option it might require customers to pay something like $200 more. Would anyone be willing to pay that?

If so, I will just hope that Lenovo makes so much money at some point that they can afford to offer an option like that that even if it loses money for them, simply for the 'halo effect'. Stranger things have happened..

 

I don't disagree with many of the other things you said, I just wanted to comment that I would gladly pay $200 more for a half-decent 1600x900 12.5" screen on a Lenovo. That would put it in the $900-1200 range depending on other options, which in my opinion is very tolerable. It would forego the need to step up to a 14" to get a higher resolution.

 

High resolution 12.5 inch or even 13.3 inch Thinkpads would be nice. I like the X201s and X200s's WXGA+ LCD option and X6xt's SXGA+ with AFFS screen technology.

 

There's a difference between making some profit and maximizing profit. What's unclear? Do you know of a single large corporation that's proven to have reached the holy grail of maximizing profit? Do you know the difference between having a goal and reaching it?

Are you just pulling this figure out of thin air, or are you basing it on something real? Right now the X220 sells with an identical-resolution IPS option for $50 more, on which Lenovo presumably makes a profit.

I don't think you understood what you read.

One of your bigger fallacies lies in assuming that Lenovo is always correct, simply because they have a goal. Shareholders often think that directors of their companies are headed in the wrong direction. That's why they sometimes remove directors. I'm shocked that you apparently assume that all Lenovo shareholders agree with choices made by management; is that just another assumption based on nothing but your strong feeling that Lenovo can do no wrong?

 

No, I don't think you understood what I was saying, but I wont try to convince you of anything.

 

Yes, maybe it's best that you not try to convince me of anything. In any event, here the idea is again, for your convenience: The fact that Lenovo has the goal of maximizing profits does not mean that they actually do so. In fact, like all big companies, they never do.

 

Haha, well, welcome to NBR. You'll fit in just great here.

 

That they do. They've also started moving towards 16:9 with various models, and I suspect are only able to stick with 16:10 much longer due to the massive volume advantage that they have over many other manufacturers.

When I last looked at the panels in use in the current MacBook lineup, the models I saw certainly lent credence to the theory that they've got a massive supply that they're simply using up.

Just as a sidebar: many of the IPS panels used in the T6x and T4x series machines (as well as a number of TN panels used in other ThinkPads) were produced by IDTech. Given IDTech's short lifespan and ultimate fate, I tend to think that laptop LCD manufacturing is one of those areas where the manufacturers have a choice of profit or flexibility but not both... They did produce a heck of a lot of panels specifically for IBM, and I can't help but wonder if that fact isn't related to how they wound up.

Lenovo's also had to cut costs just to *be* profitable. Keep in mind: IBM's PC division lost money pretty much every single year. Lenovo took over a business that was chronically in the red and made it profitable. Given that background, I can certainly understand why they choose to simply take what the LCD manufacturers want to offer -- and I definitely understand why they didn't do something like start their own panel-manufacturing business...