backtop


Print 17 comment(s) - last by lordbob99.. on Aug 12 at 4:01 PM

1080p display option is only $20 more than the 1366x768 base system

Google’s Chrome OS has proven to be a popular choice for low-cost notebooks in the U.S. market. For consumers that simply want to surf the internet, write emails, and do light word processing, Chromebooks make a credible alternative to machines running Windows 8.1.
 
Acer already has a lineup of Chromebooks that it offers to U.S. customers, but the company is furthering its efforts with the release of the new Chromebook 13 series. Acer has upped the ante, making a 13.3” 1080p display available on the Chromebook 13 (a lower resolution, 1366x768 comes standard).
 
Regardless of screen resolution, the Chromebook 13 packs in a potent NVIDIA Tegra K1 to handle processing duties. The fanless, 3.31-pound machine also includes two USB 3.0 ports and HDMI support. Models that come equipped with the lesser display are rated for up to 13 hours of battery life, while those that opt for the 1080p display will be greeted with a still respectable 11 hours of runtime.

 
The base machine with a 1366x768 display, 2GB of RAM, and 16GB of storage runs $279.99. However, stepping up to the 1080p display with the same amount of RAM and storage space costs just $20 more at $299.99, which makes us think that only the most fervent cheapskates would go for the lesser model.
 
The range-topping model comes with a 1080p display, 4GB of RAM and 32GB of internal storage — it will come with a price tag of $379.99.
 
The base machine is comparable in price to the HP Chromebook 14 ($279) that features a 1366x768 display, Intel Celeron 2955U processor, 2GB of RAM, and 16GB of storage. The 1080p model undercuts the price of the Samsung Chromebook 2 ($379), which offers a 1080p display, Exynos 5 Octa 5800 processor, 4GB of RAM, and 16GB of storage.
 
Acer is taking pre-orders right now for the Chromebook 13, and it will ship next month.

Source: Acer



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

clever marketing
By Pessimism on 8/11/2014 12:37:40 PM , Rating: 3
They are just subsidizing the cost of the 1080p option by hiding it in the base cost of the unit. Chromebooks were never supposed to hit $300, that means it has failed as a product and is no longer a Chromebook.




RE: clever marketing
By Argon18 on 8/11/2014 1:45:33 PM , Rating: 1
512k ought to be enough for anyone, eh?


RE: clever marketing
By Reclaimer77 on 8/11/2014 3:55:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Chromebooks were never supposed to hit $300, that means it has failed as a product and is no longer a Chromebook.


What does this mean exactly?


RE: clever marketing
By amanojaku on 8/11/2014 4:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
It means the OP is as lazy as he is ignorant. A simple wiki search could have told him:

Chromebooks first shipped in June 2011 for as low as $350 and as much as $500.

Chromebooks first hit $200 in Oct 2012 when Acer released its C7.


RE: clever marketing
By NnyanTengwar on 8/11/2014 6:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with amanojaku, where are you getting your facts or are you just spouting crap b/c you can? The Samsung Series 5 and the Acer AC700 were priced between $349 and $499 depending on options. No where was it stated that the original goal for chromebooks was to be under $300.

But you are right they are a complete failure, as Gartner expects 5.2 million chromebooks to sell this year (huge increase over last year) even while other segments lag. Oh yeah huge failure.


RE: clever marketing
By GotThumbs on 8/12/2014 9:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
Correct.

Chromebooks are gaining popularity.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/11/analyst_se...

I've been seriously looking at getting one myself for couch surfing the web during TV commercials or programs I'm less interested in.


RE: clever marketing
By karmamule on 8/12/2014 10:13:24 AM , Rating: 2
Which is why the one Chromebook Google made themselves, the Chromebook Pixel, was under $300!

Oh, wait, no, it was $1299.


So when they say 13 hours battery life...
By quiksilvr on 8/11/2014 10:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
Do they mean that for the 1366x768 version or 1920x1080 version? I'm curious to see some benchmark tests between this and the Core i3 version as well (off screen battery life of course since they are different screen sizes).




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/11/2014 10:54:50 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Models that come equipped with the lesser display are rated for up to 13 hours of battery life, while those that opt for the 1080p display will be greeted with a still respectable 11 hours of runtime.


By quiksilvr on 8/11/2014 2:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Missed that bit. That's still an incredible battery life.


RE: So when they say 13 hours battery life...
By Jeffk464 on 8/11/2014 11:44:50 AM , Rating: 1
Hey, wait a second. Isn't the celeron the faster processor?


By Solandri on 8/11/2014 10:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
Quite frankly, I don't know what the difference is between a Celeron and Pentium anymore. Looking at their specs, the only difference I see is clock speed (Celeron is slightly slower). Low-end CPUs have been "fast enough" for most people for almost 5 years now. As they continue to get faster, the low end continues to get squeezed, and the differences between them continue to shrink.

Intel keeps trying to make them different to stratify the market, but they're so close in performance it really doesn't matter anywhere. The i3 has 3 MB of cache instead of 2 MB, hyperthreading, and HD4600 graphics instead of HD. But most of those advantages are offset by the low clock speed of the ULV i3s. Reading the specs for the Haswell Pentium and Celeron, they look identical except for the clock speed (Celeron is 10%-15% slower).


$20 screen upgrade
By fic2 on 8/11/2014 12:37:15 PM , Rating: 3
Now if all the manufacturers would offer a $20 upgrade to 1080 we would see the crappy 768 displays quickly disappear off the face of the earth....




RE: $20 screen upgrade
By ritualm on 8/11/2014 7:33:16 PM , Rating: 3
I'd rather see them just tack on that $20 to the laptop price and eliminate the 768p option altogether. Right now, that Acer strikes me in the wrong way, "flimsy" and "questionable" "build quality" in tow.


screen tech
By agent2099 on 8/11/2014 2:35:28 PM , Rating: 2
Is the Screen IPS?




RE: screen tech
By lordbob99 on 8/12/2014 4:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's listed as a ComfyView screen on Acer's website, which looks like was IPS on the 1080p Acer S7 screen.


A day late, a dollar short..
By ummduh on 8/11/2014 2:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it's late at least.

School starts this week for a lot of kids, which means we already had to purchase new chrome books. I would have went for this given the better screen and battery life, but I needed it last week, not next month.




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki