backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on May 4 at 8:51 AM

Corporate accounts are buying into the ultrabook big time

So far, the Intel-based ultrabook market has been very small and few consumers have jumped on the “thin and light” bandwagon. While the market as a whole isn’t exactly setting sales records, Dell is bragging that XPS 13 ultrabook sales have been higher than its initial projections. The XPS 13 is made using aluminum and carbon fiber for strength and reduced weight.
 
Dell says that demand has been about three times what it expected for the machines.
 
"We can't build enough of them at the moment," said Sam Burd, vice president of Dell's Consumer and SMB product group. "A little bit less than 3X the expected demand," he said.
 
Dell won't provide specific numbers on the units it's selling, but greater than expected demand is a good sign for ultrabook makers overall. One of the main things that have been holding ultrabooks back from adoption by mainstream users has been the price of entry. The ultrabook was originally expected at around $600 and many of the first units to hit the market were significantly more than that amount.

 
Analyst Stephen Baker from NPD Group says that he's optimistic about ultrabooks in the long run. He also notes the computer makers need to focus on fewer models and more profitability for each product they do offer. "Look at the iPad. People are willing to pay $600 or $700 for something that gives them a great experience. Something that looks good and makes them feel comfortable and confident.”
 
The XPS 13 isn't cheap ultrabook with prices starting at $999. Most of the sales that are driving the machine's success are coming out of large corporate accounts according to Burd.
 
The ultrabook market is expected to benefit significantly from Intel's Ivy Bridge processors.

Source: CNET



Comments     Threshold


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

By TakinYourPoints on 5/2/2012 6:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
The only limitation I've run into are a few games, and I mean "a few" given that Valve and Blizzard both have native OS X version of their games, plus what is available on both Steam and the App Store.

Hell, my favorite FTP application is OS X only, I wouldn't mind seeing a Windows port for my desktop.

Limited hardware compatibility is also a BS argument, what has a USB plug or Wifi connectivity and doesn't work with OS X these days?


By Reclaimer77 on 5/2/2012 10:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because we know everything out there runs off USB lol. It's NOT a BS argument. We're talking about OS X, not just OS X as it pertains to laptops. For you to sit here and try to claim OS X has anywhere NEAR the hardware support that Windows does is a lie. You sir are lying.

Gaming? Okay you're using myopic arguments again to make your point. The biggest game of the year in 2011, Elder Scrolls Skyrim, doesn't even have an official Mac version. Still. Yes more and more games on Steam have OS X versions, but there's always that very good chance a huge title could pass you by, with your only resort being to Boot Camp into Windows if you want to play it.

OS X lost Takin. The war is already over. Give the Reality Distortion field a rest.


By TakinYourPoints on 5/2/2012 6:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes because we know everything out there runs off USB lol. It's NOT a BS argument. We're talking about OS X, not just OS X as it pertains to laptops. For you to sit here and try to claim OS X has anywhere NEAR the hardware support that Windows does is a lie. You sir are lying.


What external hardware can't my Macs interface with due to driver incompatabilities? Just curious, I have a hard time coming up with any.

As for software compatibility, OS X Quick Look natively reads more files than a default Windows installation without any additional software installed. OS X is highly compatible with other file formats.

Your argument that OS X can't interface with the outside world is incredibly ignorant.

quote:
Gaming? Okay you're using myopic arguments again to make your point.


It is the one point that is actually relevant to me, given that my PC is a game machine first and foremost. It is the only tangible difference between the two operating systems, and I prefer almost everything else about OS X (note that I also think Windows 7 is great).

quote:
The biggest game of the year in 2011, Elder Scrolls Skyrim, doesn't even have an official Mac version. Still. Yes more and more games on Steam have OS X versions, but there's always that very good chance a huge title could pass you by, with your only resort being to Boot Camp into Windows if you want to play it.


Yup, and that's fine, I know what I'm getting into. The tradeoff of having an excellent laptop and missing something like Skyrim without dual-booting is fine by me. Enough games that actually matter to me (Blizzard and Valve namely) are native to the platform anyway, so I'm all good.

(Skyrim is boring anyway, /ducks)

quote:
OS X lost Takin. The war is already over. Give the Reality Distortion field a rest.


OS X continues to grow marketshare in a declining market. So long as the operating system and the hardware is top-notch, I'm a-ok with it. I'm sorry if the higher price tag shuts out more people than it needs to, but you get what you pay for.

It is almost the same with PC gaming rigs. My desktop PC is well out of the price range than most people can afford and makes up an even smaller percentage of machines out there than Macs, but that doesn't make it bad.


By TakinYourPoints on 5/2/2012 8:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OS X lost


This quote says quite a lot about your mindset.

Ignoring how wrong it is, the fact that OS X marketshare continues to grow as overall desktop/laptop sales decline, and the fact that Apple is the #1 seller of computers over $1000, there's something else going on.

How many people use a platform doesn't really matter to me so long as it is still well supported and works great. OS X isn't lacking in applications and they have some of the best hardware out there. If install numbers actually mattered to me then I'd have completely dumped my PC for a console years ago, but screw that. The PC gaming market may be diminished compared to how it was ten years ago, but that doesn't mean that I'm just going to jump ship to something I feel that the more popular platform is inferior.

You continue to see things in a very black and white manner that has nothing to do with utility or practicality. It is the same irrational fanboy mentality that people use with sports teams or religion.

Anyway, your one-dimensional mindset is pretty funny.


By retrospooty on 5/2/2012 12:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
"The only limitation I've run into are a few games, and I mean "a few" given that Valve and Blizzard both have native OS X version of their games, plus what is available on both Steam and the App Store. Hell, my favorite FTP application is OS X only, I wouldn't mind seeing a Windows port for my desktop."

LOL... An argument for OS X not having limitations in the same post with a note about an app he wishes couldbe used on his Windows desktop. Let me ask you this? If OS X is anywhere near equal in overall (pick any subject) support, why are you using Windows?


By TakinYourPoints on 5/2/2012 6:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
I use Windows for games, plain and simple. OS X is my work/productivity machine while my PC is a very expensive game console.


By retrospooty on 5/3/2012 8:18:10 AM , Rating: 2
"I use Windows for games, plain and simple. OS X is my work/productivity machine while my PC is a very expensive game console."

Yet above you mention the higher price tag for Mac's and claim "you get what you pay for". So, for your Mac, you paid more and got less. Ask yourself this... Buy a PC and a Mac with comparable hardware specs. What can you do on the PC that you cant do on the Mac? What can you do on the Mac that you cant do on the PC.

The answer is that Mac's are perfectly comparable systems with the major exceptions of Gaming and enterprise apps/business network support. Why is that Mac more expensive again?


By TakinYourPoints on 5/3/2012 9:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
I pay for much better notebook hardware (display, keyboard, trackpad with multitouch gestures, battery life) and OS specific applications I need (things like Final Cut Pro 7). I also prefer working in the OS X environment, things like organizing assets, managing multiple virtual desktops, window management, using multitouch gestures, the list goes on. Working is much faster and more fluid than it is in Windows. As I said, my productivity OS.

As for price, I disagree. Get a PC up to the standards of a Mac and you're right up there. For example, my 24" LCD is a NEC 2490WUXi, it cost me about $1000 back in 2007. That same IPS panel was in the 2007 iMac, and it made up over half the price of that hardware. Over half the price of a 27" iMac is the same 27" IPS monitor that costs $1000 (used to be $1100) from Dell, and it still uses Core i5 and i7 processors. Fantastic deal, especially compared to other all-in-ones out there.

Spec a business class notebook up to MBP standards with a comparable display and you're paying as much as or more. Ultrabooks with comparable specs cost about as much as a Macbook Air, except that you're still dealing with inferior trackpads and displays.

You can buy PC hardware for less, certainly, but you're skimping on things like the display, the keyboard, the trackpad, chassis size, weight, etc. You can get a great PC notebook but it'll cost at least as much.

I know both Windows and OS X like the back of my hand, and I've used MS operating systems for about 15 years longer than I have OS X. My decision with both the hardware and the software is a very informed one, thanks.


By retrospooty on 5/4/2012 8:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like your Mac does alot of good stuff. All that , and you still needed to buy a PC to game on. What a great argument... ;)


By TakinYourPoints on 5/3/2012 9:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
Also, the aside about business/enterprise support is BS. It has Office, loads of offices here use it. As for other things, I dunno, maybe businesses outside of California don't feel *nix is that important. Nearly every web and backend developer I know here uses a Mac. My Googler friends all work on Macs, but maybe that's not a real business...


By retrospooty on 5/4/2012 8:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
"Also, the aside about business/enterprise support is BS. It has Office, loads of offices here use it. As for other things"

I'll give you some of the points you made in the post above as personal opinion/preference but, LOL... MS Office? You don't even know what business is. It's enterprise and all systems that run with it. Call me when the plants that build Mac's and iPhones can do it without PC's and the Win based servers the world runs on. Call me when they come out with the accounting, procurement, logistics, reverse logistics, inventory, shop floor, CRM software etc. comes out on any other platform and integrates it all in to one working ecosystem, AND supports it... No one else is even close, no one else has even started to try it.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













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