Its amusing to see the smirks on apple fanboys' faces after reading this article stating naively that "PCs can't compete with the the air's price" or the more laughable "Apple is superior to a pc in technology."
Historically, the reason for that smirk is effectively Schadenfreude, after decades of being on the receiving end of an abusive "Macs Overpriced" mantra that was invalide for the very same "What they don't understand..." reason, which was that development costs distributed across Apple's smaller manufacturing economies of scale didn't result in the same cost formula.
What they don't understand is that this ultrabook is a first gen product so the cost is going to higher initially. Like all tech, once its its been out a while, the price will go down.
But of course. However, the first question to ask is where & when does this Learning Curve for price reductions apply...here?
This is clearly (and explictly) a derivative work from the Macbook Air, so does it start back in 2008 when the first MBA was released? Or does it actually go back further, such as to 2003 when the first Sony VAIO 505 was released? Or does it go even further back? Say to the 1992 release of the Powerbook Duo? Or even earlier, to the first portable Compaq DOS PC in the 1980s?
Afterall, it is indisputable that there have been R&D efforts (and products) that have sought to make laptops smaller/lighter/better for decades. And as such, does not all innovation essentially stand upon the shoulders of its predecessors (or, if one prefers, "nanos gigantium humeris insidentes")?
Indeed. From the technological perspective, these are all extensively derivative ...evolutionary... works. Sure, there's been revolutionary stuff too, but at very low levels as enablers, and not on the macro design scale: that's why we generalize to "<3lb portable", and not to: "device with enhanced appeal due to incorporation of Li-Po membrane enhancements to its power supply".
If you think back to the first gen macbook air, it was essentially an overpriced netbook, poor performance, high price, very little value except that it was thin and compact (but you can get the same with a ultraportable.) Now several gens later, look at the air. It actually performs great, and its a great value for what it offers.
Sure...classical refinement & learning curve - - but also attributable to investments in those specialty items to drive down costs...which generally do not stay exclusive to the original developer forever.
This first gen ultrabook currently campares on par with the macbook air price wise, performance wise, and design wise...
That would be true only if there's literally been absolutely nothing contained within its design that is newer than 2008, which is what we have to use as our baseline to definitively state that there's been zero technology leveraging. Since the Digitimes article specifically states that they're functionally copying MBA design elements and material solution approaches, this caveat cannot be true, and as such, a "First Gen" claim isn't true. Sure, it may be a "First Design" effort by a new manufacturer, but it is a derivative work which is leveraging common parts that are now in the supply chain only because of the true "First Gen" that came out from someone before them (be that Apple in 2008, or Sony in 2003, etc).
One more thing, please, please stop thinking that apple is superior to pcs technologically. Its ridiculous and not remotely true. They all use mostly the same hardware, supplied mostly by the same manufacturers. Cpus from Intel mostly, graphics from Nvidia or ATI, hdd from one of the many oem companies, most of which are the same performance wise.
Well, that can be mostly true if one limits the definition of "technology" to only hardware. However, that does then beg the question of what term other than "technology" one is going to use to differentiate software (which includes an OS)...so shall we go coin a new word to describe that area instead? If so, I nominate the word of Moof!ology
-hh