Only Apple and Google are skating to where the puck is going(weiranzhang.com)
weiranzhang.com
Only Apple and Google are skating to where the puck is going
http://weiranzhang.com/blog/2013/2/chromebook-pixel
59 comments
This is a great comment and I agree completely. If the business model doesn't work, things will work themselves out and companies will perish, change, or survive in whatever way they know how.
Shockingly short-sighted post. Apple does not make it's profits from feeds & speeds (e.g. Retina display). It makes its profits, and delights its customers through its vertical integration; its excellence at every point of the customer experience from design, to supply chain management, to manufacturing, to distribution, to marketing, to advertising, to retail, to sales, to post-sales, to support, to software, to services.
To assert that, from a business perspective, that the "puck" that Google (or Apple) worry about is ludicrous. These two companies do not even compete on the same rink. Their competition is asymmetric. Apple's profits come from 'high margins at retail, paid up front'. Google's profits come from 'the consumer is the product, the advertiser is the customer'.
It is fun to try to compare the micro-actions of these companies, but it is not business or strategy analysis.
To assert that, from a business perspective, that the "puck" that Google (or Apple) worry about is ludicrous. These two companies do not even compete on the same rink. Their competition is asymmetric. Apple's profits come from 'high margins at retail, paid up front'. Google's profits come from 'the consumer is the product, the advertiser is the customer'.
It is fun to try to compare the micro-actions of these companies, but it is not business or strategy analysis.
Except that in this particular case:
- Google is vertically integerated, at least to as high a degree as Apple is with Macs
- Google is trying to sell a physical product at high margins
- Google is heavily rumored to be setting up its own retail presence
Honestly, you'd think that at least when we're discussing a $1300 laptop, the lame "you're the product" cliche could be avoided.
- Google is vertically integerated, at least to as high a degree as Apple is with Macs
- Google is trying to sell a physical product at high margins
- Google is heavily rumored to be setting up its own retail presence
Honestly, you'd think that at least when we're discussing a $1300 laptop, the lame "you're the product" cliche could be avoided.
>Google is trying to sell a physical product at high margins
Reference?
The Chromebook Pixel is still heavily geared towards Google's services, be it Docs or Storage. 1TB of Google Drive storage currently runs $600/yr if you get it by itself which comes to a $1800 subsidy for a $1300 laptop!
That either means their Drive storage is horribly overpriced, or that they're heavily subsidizing the Pixel.
Reference?
The Chromebook Pixel is still heavily geared towards Google's services, be it Docs or Storage. 1TB of Google Drive storage currently runs $600/yr if you get it by itself which comes to a $1800 subsidy for a $1300 laptop!
That either means their Drive storage is horribly overpriced, or that they're heavily subsidizing the Pixel.
Somebody buying 1TB of Drive space presumably intends to use it, and Google won't make a huge margin on that. (Don't know their cost structure, and wouldn't reveal it if I knew). But most people getting "free" Drive space with a laptop is not going to use most it.
Additionally it's unlikely to amount to $1800 subsidy. Storage costs decrease exponentially, so the value of 1TB in 3 years is much lower than 1TB now.
Additionally it's unlikely to amount to $1800 subsidy. Storage costs decrease exponentially, so the value of 1TB in 3 years is much lower than 1TB now.
"Honestly, you'd think that at least when we're discussing a $1300 laptop, the lame "you're the product" cliche could be avoided."
You'd think so but especially not here, everything you do will be "seen" by Google. So, you'll be paying $1300+ for a browser and be tracked massively by Google to "serve you better ads." Yay!
You'd think so but especially not here, everything you do will be "seen" by Google. So, you'll be paying $1300+ for a browser and be tracked massively by Google to "serve you better ads." Yay!
You're expecting too much from someone who thinks the Windows OEMs don't make laptops with SSDs exclusively.
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/pc/computing/toshiba-launch...
There, a laptop with only SSD in 2007, which is over 5 years ago. Who was skating where now?
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/pc/computing/toshiba-launch...
There, a laptop with only SSD in 2007, which is over 5 years ago. Who was skating where now?
Microsoft are really holding back higher resolution displays.
I mean 125% on Windows has now essentially become a requirement to use Windows on any monitor made in the last few years, and we're almost up to the point where 150% is required. However the problem is that 150% seems to break MANY Windows applications (both third and first party).
I'm really hopefully that when displays become just slightly higher resolution we will see some third party software which can "scale" Windows up so that it works the same as Retina displays on the Macbooks do (i.e. real resolution and relative resolution aren't locked together).
I mean 125% on Windows has now essentially become a requirement to use Windows on any monitor made in the last few years, and we're almost up to the point where 150% is required. However the problem is that 150% seems to break MANY Windows applications (both third and first party).
I'm really hopefully that when displays become just slightly higher resolution we will see some third party software which can "scale" Windows up so that it works the same as Retina displays on the Macbooks do (i.e. real resolution and relative resolution aren't locked together).
I use an old MBP that I'd like to replace soon, but there's no way I can get the Pixel - it just doesn't do stuff.
I think Chrome OS needs a great virtualization solution - just how chrome handles PDFs and Flash fairly well. I want to be able to open a "windows" tab or an "ubuntu" tab, use them normally.
I think Chrome OS needs a great virtualization solution - just how chrome handles PDFs and Flash fairly well. I want to be able to open a "windows" tab or an "ubuntu" tab, use them normally.
Don't they include a Citrix/RDP client? I thought that was one of their main features when they pitched ChromeOS to the enterprise. With that and VNC, I'm sure it would be possible to roll your own virtualization. I think there are just too many variables for them to deploy a generic system.
unless you want Google to host the VMs as well. That could be interesting.
unless you want Google to host the VMs as well. That could be interesting.
I've had good luck with Chrome Remote Desktop:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-remote-desk...
It works from two instances of Chrome, which could be on any platform (not just Chromebooks).
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-remote-desk...
It works from two instances of Chrome, which could be on any platform (not just Chromebooks).
It seems like the author sees where Apple is skating, and assumes the puck must be going there also.
I totally don't see why it is important to have absurdly high resolutions, when sometimes what matters is something else.
For example, I want a machine that is reliable (both in software and hardware), fast enough for my purposes and with good usability.
The only point where the Pixel scores in that is their 3:2 screen, that make much more sense than those crazy widescreens.
For example, I want a machine that is reliable (both in software and hardware), fast enough for my purposes and with good usability.
The only point where the Pixel scores in that is their 3:2 screen, that make much more sense than those crazy widescreens.
>but the old Windows desktop has never supported high DPI displays, and I don't think it's about to.
Except it has. I've been using it like that for 7 years on my lounge TV which is scaled to 175%. On my old Z series for 3 years which had a high PPI screen before anyone else was pushing that way (colour rendition suffered a bit I felt).
The problem is lots of software doesn't play well, they use dodgy code, assume its always 96 dpi screen. Even VB devs given twips managed to mess it up with hardcoded assumptions all over the place.
However, all the main apps I use support it, if one doesn't well you can set that apps option indevidually.
Except it has. I've been using it like that for 7 years on my lounge TV which is scaled to 175%. On my old Z series for 3 years which had a high PPI screen before anyone else was pushing that way (colour rendition suffered a bit I felt).
The problem is lots of software doesn't play well, they use dodgy code, assume its always 96 dpi screen. Even VB devs given twips managed to mess it up with hardcoded assumptions all over the place.
However, all the main apps I use support it, if one doesn't well you can set that apps option indevidually.
Just a quick check on komplett.no, a leading online dealer in Norway for computer equipment.
- Laptops with ssds start at 6000 nok (1057 USD).
- Laptops with IPS screen start at 6000 nok (1057 USD).
- Small screen (11.7") laptop with IPS & full hd (189 dpi) & SSD starts at 9795 nok (1718 usd).
- Macbook retina 13" starts at 11490 nok (2015 usd).
A year ago there were hardly any laptops with IPS screens or cheap laptops with SSDs. A lot has changed. I still love my retina macbook pro 15".
- Laptops with ssds start at 6000 nok (1057 USD).
- Laptops with IPS screen start at 6000 nok (1057 USD).
- Small screen (11.7") laptop with IPS & full hd (189 dpi) & SSD starts at 9795 nok (1718 usd).
- Macbook retina 13" starts at 11490 nok (2015 usd).
A year ago there were hardly any laptops with IPS screens or cheap laptops with SSDs. A lot has changed. I still love my retina macbook pro 15".
Some context for non-hockey fans:
"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be." - Wayne Gretzky
"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be." - Wayne Gretzky
Let's continue this digression.
Fun fact I learned recently about guided missiles (I have diverse interests), modern ones don't adjust to aim directly at the target, they adjust to keep the target at the same relative angle (the same position on the imager). This has the effect of leading the target and flying an intercept course instead of a following course, which is more efficient and effective.
Fun fact I learned recently about guided missiles (I have diverse interests), modern ones don't adjust to aim directly at the target, they adjust to keep the target at the same relative angle (the same position on the imager). This has the effect of leading the target and flying an intercept course instead of a following course, which is more efficient and effective.
Interestingly, the fun fact is something any mariner could have told a missile designer. We call it CBDR; Constant [relative] Bearing, Decreasing Range.
Stay in CBDR for long enough and you're pretty much guaranteed a collision.
Stay in CBDR for long enough and you're pretty much guaranteed a collision.
Dogs catching frisbees employ a similar methodology:
http://digitalunion.osu.edu/r2/summer06/maynor/journal_artic...
I heart comment chains like these. Thanks for the wonderful side trip of interesting but unrelated facts!
This video of the Sprint ABM missile (0 to Mach 10 in 5 seconds!) shows it intercepting a ICBM RV in a test - given the speed of the RV it does look like the missile is aiming where the RV is going to be rather than where it is - and this is from the 1970s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA
Another fun fact, the Sprint's first stage only fired for 1.2 seconds.
Umm, "modern ones"? Meaning practically the first one, Sidewinder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#History
"The Sidewinder also included a dramatically improved guidance algorithm. The Enzian attempted to fly directly at its target, feeding the direction of the telescope into the control system as it if were a joystick. This meant the missile always flew directly at its target, and under most conditions would end up behind it, "chasing" it down. This meant that the missile had to have enough of a speed advantage over its target that it did not run out of fuel during the interception.
The Sidewinder is not guided on the actual position recorded by the detector, but on the change in position since the last sighting. "
"The Sidewinder also included a dramatically improved guidance algorithm. The Enzian attempted to fly directly at its target, feeding the direction of the telescope into the control system as it if were a joystick. This meant the missile always flew directly at its target, and under most conditions would end up behind it, "chasing" it down. This meant that the missile had to have enough of a speed advantage over its target that it did not run out of fuel during the interception.
The Sidewinder is not guided on the actual position recorded by the detector, but on the change in position since the last sighting. "
By "modern" I mean a subset of systems which excludes first generation systems as well as some second and other generation systems, it's generally just simpler to say "modern" than be more specific. If I said "modern computers use integrated circuits" the timeline of modernity would be clear, I don't mean state of the art, just not archaic.
> By "modern" I mean a subset of systems which excludes first generation systems as well as some second and other generation systems
The word you're looking for is "mature."
The word you're looking for is "mature."
Maturity of a technological system to me implies a plateau of design, but that's not the case in missile guidance. Current generation systems are significantly more advanced and more capable than previous generation systems.
Yes, sorry for nitpicking but I just think that the word choice was perhaps not good. I'd think modern missiles means something much more recent easily, when this is talking about something practically existent for the whole development time of missiles. Sidewinder development was started in 1946.
To get back to sports, this is also how outfielders (in baseball) catch fly balls: http://psychology.clas.asu.edu/files/2002_JEP-HPP%28Uncatcha...
Actually a good hockey player plays his position, so he is where he needs to be when his teammate gets the puck.
Except Walter said it, not Wayne. And it was advice for junior players, not pros.
Not strictly a Hockey thing. Try playing Space Invaders "where the invader is"…
Apple and Google are able to take risks because the companies are all but guaranteed revenue every year. Google specifically does not really need a lot of their hardware to succeed because of their massive revenue from search. They are able to make risks on products that would result in more people online if they succeed because if it works they make more money off search, and if it fails they have a lot of revenue to fall back on. Companies like Sony, Asus, and Lenovo (while I do maintain that they are innovating in their own ways) can't take these risks because if they get a rep for making bad laptops they have nothing to fall back on. Hardware is an expensive game and it's difficult to justify taking risks in it if you have no solid revenue stream to fall back on if it fails.
The mass market for which Sony, Asus etc are producing is not really interested in super high resolution displays. However, they all offer 1080p displays in their top the line laptops which i find more than enough on a Laptop.
Most people are fine with their 24inch display sporting 1920x1200 resolution but then suddenly on a 13" notebook or even a smartphone 1080p isnt enough ? Its ridiculous!
I have used a Macbook Retina and to me it was not much of a revelation. Yep, the display is nice, text is super sharp and everything is crystal clear but i didnt have the feeling that i would absolutely need this, and i would consider myself a hardware geek and pro user.
Most people are fine with their 24inch display sporting 1920x1200 resolution but then suddenly on a 13" notebook or even a smartphone 1080p isnt enough ? Its ridiculous!
I have used a Macbook Retina and to me it was not much of a revelation. Yep, the display is nice, text is super sharp and everything is crystal clear but i didnt have the feeling that i would absolutely need this, and i would consider myself a hardware geek and pro user.
Hi-res is the future of laptops because the future of laptops is to become specialty tools for content creators. Everyone else will be using phones and tablets for mobile computing.
So I don't understand the purpose of a hi-res "cloud" laptop. The hi-res screen is ideal for high-end photographic and video work--the two areas of content creation that are still struggling to move to the cloud.
So I don't understand the purpose of a hi-res "cloud" laptop. The hi-res screen is ideal for high-end photographic and video work--the two areas of content creation that are still struggling to move to the cloud.
tl;dr: The low-margin OEM business is different than the high-margin software/integrated systems business.
Other laptops can't use high definition displays because Windows would not look and feel nice on them.
MS behaved as if they can ignore the display progress forever, and now it's finally bites them and their minions in the rear, which is lovely.
MS behaved as if they can ignore the display progress forever, and now it's finally bites them and their minions in the rear, which is lovely.
Do we really need retina displays? Or are they just trying to make something new for us to spend money on? Right now Sony ASUS and Lenovo are doing fine. Nice headline. You got me to read the first paragraph or so.
I'd say we don't "need" retina displays (much like we don't need unibody laptop shells).
However, it's really nice to have them as a luxury "standard". It's been too long that computer displays have been held back by 720p/1080p inertia.
However, it's really nice to have them as a luxury "standard". It's been too long that computer displays have been held back by 720p/1080p inertia.
tl;dr: this article wastes your time
can't one just install a different OS? or is the chromebook pixel using some weird hardware?
>Sony, Asus, and Lenovo all have notebooks at similar prices, but none have a high density display and none have only solid state storage.
Huh what? A lot of ultrabooks have only SSDs, has the author been in coma for the last year?
Sony has a Vaio Duo 11" with a 1080p display. Lenovo and Asus also have or are about to have high density displays.
All in all, an empty uninsightful fluff piece.
Also, please get some contrast and test how your blog looks on the machines that aren't (retina) Macs.
http://contrastrebellion.com/
Huh what? A lot of ultrabooks have only SSDs, has the author been in coma for the last year?
Sony has a Vaio Duo 11" with a 1080p display. Lenovo and Asus also have or are about to have high density displays.
All in all, an empty uninsightful fluff piece.
Also, please get some contrast and test how your blog looks on the machines that aren't (retina) Macs.
http://contrastrebellion.com/
I just purchased an Asus UX51VZ with 2x128gb SSDs and a 15" 1080p display that weighs less than a Macbook Pro Retina, for $400 less than the Macbook would've cost. The Retina has a couple of big wins over the UX51VZ (battery life and higher resolution display) but I wouldn't put them in different classes, or claim that Asus isn't even trying.
[deleted]
"The new Metro side of Windows 8 scales well with Retina displays, but the old Windows desktop has never supported high DPI displays, and I don't think it's about to."
Also not true. Perhaps it doesn't work perfectly, but it's there, to say it "..has never supported high DPI displays.." is just completely wrong.
http://www.kynosarges.org/WindowsDpi.html
Also not true. Perhaps it doesn't work perfectly, but it's there, to say it "..has never supported high DPI displays.." is just completely wrong.
http://www.kynosarges.org/WindowsDpi.html
Sony does not have any notebook with the high density display of Apple's, or the one Google is trying. 1080p is not a synonym of a high density (PPI) display.
>1080p is not a synonym of a high density (PPI) display.
Not on a 24" screen, but 11" at 1080p is pretty much there.
Not on a 24" screen, but 11" at 1080p is pretty much there.
Macbook Pro (retina): 2560x1600 at 227 pixels per inch.
1080p: 1920x1080 (assuming 16:9)
Really can't compare. I do not mean I have seen all, but no display I have seen (on notebooks) gets near Apple's "retina display." None. Google is trying with the Pixel.
1080p: 1920x1080 (assuming 16:9)
Really can't compare. I do not mean I have seen all, but no display I have seen (on notebooks) gets near Apple's "retina display." None. Google is trying with the Pixel.
You left out the DPI number for the 11" 1080p display.
Let me try:
Retina iPad: 264 PPI
13" Retina Macbook Pro: 227 PPI
10.6" Surface Pro: 208 PPI
11" Vaio Duo 11: 190 PPI
There is a difference but it is minor and I disagree with your statements you can't compare or that it doesn't even "get near". You'll be hitting the point of diminishing returns.
Let me try:
Retina iPad: 264 PPI
13" Retina Macbook Pro: 227 PPI
10.6" Surface Pro: 208 PPI
11" Vaio Duo 11: 190 PPI
There is a difference but it is minor and I disagree with your statements you can't compare or that it doesn't even "get near". You'll be hitting the point of diminishing returns.
How did this end with so many votes? It has nothing to do with the puck, but with money. Pay up and they'll add a 42 inch screen to your Windows 8 laptop, battery hour 36 seconds :). They are many tradeoffs, that's all.
First, this is about resolution and not the size of the screen. Second, Apple has managed to give Retina Macbook Pro a 7-hour battery life despite it's screen. Third, the article states that "Sony, Asus, and Lenovo all have notebooks at similar prices".
That's not a high margin business model. But it is a valid one. It's also the model which supplies computers to most of the population. Its the model which has brought down the price of computers year after year.
It does't inspire cliche images of technological innovators 'building-the-future' by "skating to where the puck will be" but they are an important part of the landscape. To me the tech map looks great right now. Better than ever. We have real competition among OS makers. We have serious innovation in devices. We have competition between chip makers. Competition between commodity component manufacturers is pushing prices down.
Sony, Asus, and Lenovo are doing their part. Repackaging the innovations of last year for the mass market at half the price. They're an important part of the mix.
It's great that Google are trying this new stuff with ChromeOS. It's great that Apple is out there creating new products and setting the standard in industrial design. But we don't need all companies to be Apple.