Asus: Ultrabooks Won't Threaten Tablet Market
Asus says there's room for tablets and ultrabooks to co-exist. Meanwhile, HP and Dell are gearing up to offer ultrabooks of their own.
Despite all the reports and rumors about how one device will kill off another device, there's one constant we've seen thus far: smartphones, netbooks, notebooks, tablets and desktops have seemingly worked out their differences and are coexisting together. Sure tablets are the big craze for now because Apple (once again) came up with something innovative, and manufacturers are seemingly trying to cash in on Apple's success. But all of these form factors have a primary focus and an audience that will always come calling.
Of course one of the latest fears is that the dazzling new tablet form factor may be eclipsed by this new thing called an ultrabook. It will be powerful, slim and supposedly cost under a grand. Asustek Computer CEO Jerry Shen, whose company already has a few Android tablets on the market and an ultrabook on the way, is resaauring pessimists (aka market watchers) that both form factors will coexist on the market, that one won't be a threat to the other... before the launch of Windows 8, that is.
Right now Asus is gearing up to launch its Eee Pad Transformer 2 which will sport a quad-core SoC and Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich." However Shen said that Asus is still having difficulty bringing the retail price of its ultrabook down below Intel's suggested $1000 price point. The company reportedly won't achieve this price goal until Ivy Bridge CPUs become available in the first half of 2012. Ivy Bridge will also reportedly enable ultrabooks with 13.3-inch displays to sport a hefty resolution of 2560 x 1440, or rather, "retina quality."
In related ultrabook news, Taiwan-based supply chain makers claim that -- despite the uncertainty of its Personal Systems Group -- HP will release an ultrabook by the end of the year, followed by Dell with its own ultrabook offering sometime in Q1 2012. Sources state that Taiwan-based Quanta Computer has already started ODM production of HP's ultrabook whereas Wistron is currently designing a 14-inch model for Dell which will be unveiled at CES 2012 in January 2012.
Sources are also stating that Wistron is the ODM for Acer's 13.3-inch Aspire S3, and Compal Electronics is working on Acer's 15-inch version in addition to Lenovo's IdeaPad U300. Pegatron Technology is reportedly manufacturing the 11.6-inch UX21 and the 13-inch UX31 for Asus.
Sounds like it's going to be a busy six months.
- Diablo 3 Closed Beta Hands-On: Part 4
- Dell XPS 14z Ultra-Thin Laptop Rolls Out in China
- Bethesda Blaming RAGE PC Issues on Drivers
- R.I.P. Steve Jobs, 1955-2011
- Deals Oct 5: 15.6" Dell Vostro & Laser Printer Bundle $739
- HP CEO Will Decide PC Division's Fate This Month
- Why the Windows 7 Start Menu is Going Out of Fashion
- Cooler Master Reveals the Silent Pro Hybrid Series PSUs
- TDK Develops Tech to "More Than Double" HDD Capacity
- PowerColor Reveals the Devil 13 HD6970
- Thermaltake Case Has PSU On Bottom, Fans on Top
- Western Digital Reveals WD TV Live with Wi-Fi, Spotify
- Deals Oct 6: IdeaPad A1 Tablet (2GB $199 | 16GB $249)
- Rumor: Battlefield 3 May Arrive on Steam After All
- Crytek ''Investigating'' Flash Support in CryEngine
- Micron, Samsung Launch Consortium for HMC Tech
- Apple Patents Illuminated Hardware Cases
- Acer, Asus Using Fiberglass to Keep Ultrabook Cost Low
Ivy Bridge will also reportedly enable ultrabooks with 13.3-inch displays to sport a hefty resolution of 2560 x 1440, or rather, "retina quality." You can barely find a 15' with 1080p and can they REALLY support that res with intel gpus
oops looks like the pic is an Acer laptop not the Asus!
The whole ultrabook idea could be really neat if they can keep the performance respectable and the costs reasonable.
"Ivy Bridge will also reportedly enable ultrabooks with 13.3-inch displays to sport a hefty resolution of 2560 x 1440, or rather, 'retina quality.'"
].
By my math, the retina display clocks in at 326 pixels per inch and a 13.3" at 2560x1440, "only" 221... so not quite "retina quality".
To match the PPI of an iPhone on a 13.3" display, you'd need 3776x2124 [assuming I did all of my math right
Well, given that Apple can't seem to make a retina display more the 3.5" (is that why we don't have an iPhone w/a 4" display?) I don't see a 13+" "retina"-quality display coming too soon.
"To match the PPI of an iPhone on a 13.3" display, you'd need 3776x2124"
I didn't check your math, but you don't need the same PPI for an ultrabook as you do for a phone. Ultrabooks will typically be viewed from farther distances so the PPI can be less while still being just as detailed as the eye.
"To match the PPI of an iPhone on a 13.3" display, you'd need 3776x2124"I didn't check your math, but you don't need the same PPI for an ultrabook as you do for a phone. Ultrabooks will typically be viewed from farther distances so the PPI can be less while still being just as detailed as the eye.
...but it'd be nice if the PPI wasn't less...for crystal-clear images.
Know one wants one of these makes no since this is so dumb. The hardware you get for the money is not worth it.
zak_mckraken: Ultrabooks Won't Threaten Anything
Know one wants one of these makes no since this is so dumb. The hardware you get for the money is not worth it.
I think you're very wrong. There's a lot of business executives that would be all over something like this, just like they're all over the MacBook Air for the same reason. ...how much the device costs is not their chief consideration, if a consideration at all.
The iPad was not innovative. Surely Tom's should of known that Windows had a touch tablet out in 2006.
Know one wants one of these makes no since this is so dumb. The hardware you get for the money is not worth it.
You're illiterate.
LOL, since when is Apple a leader when it comes to new tech?
Heck I'll throw away ANY tablet if I can buy an ultrabook with 2560X1440 display...as long as it isn't $4000.
LOL, since when is Apple a leader when it comes to new tech?
I'm not sure about this, so please forgive me if I'm wrong. ...but was there another cell phone manufacturer with a ppi density the same as, or higher than, the iPhone 4? While I do wish it was larger I enjoy the display quality of the iPhone 4.
I'm not sure about this, so please forgive me if I'm wrong. ...but was there another cell phone manufacturer with a ppi density the same as, or higher than, the iPhone 4? While I do wish it was larger I enjoy the display quality of the iPhone 4.
It's a gimmick, for hell's sake! I compared this "quality" to any other good phone's display around and there's no visual difference
I didn't check your math, but...
Good point, and thanks for not embarrassing me by checking my math
It's a gimmick, for hell's sake! I compared this "quality" to any other good phone's display around and there's no visual difference
SGS 2 screen >>> iPhone screen
The screen on the HTC Evo I had must have been especially poor.
The screen on the HTC Evo I had must have been especially poor.
Yep.
...jumping off topic a little here...
I guess I don't spend enough time using my phone to see why a phone would need to have a dual-core CPU processor. ...but I'm told iOS5 needs it more than iOS4. ...besides that Siri gimmick feature I'll be interested to know what else needs it. My iP4 doesn't seem all that slow. ...but if a dc CPU is going to make web-browsing much faster...yea!
Is it games that require all this processing speed on phones or just the OS?
...jumping off topic a little here...
I guess I don't spend enough time using my phone to see why a phone would need to have a dual-core CPU processor. ...but I'm told iOS5 needs it more than iOS4. ...besides that Siri gimmick feature I'll be interested to know what else needs it. My iP4 doesn't seem all that slow. ...but if a dc CPU is going to make web-browsing much faster...yea!
Is it games that require all this processing speed on phones or just the OS?
I actually don't know. Android software is mostly Java, so that requires a tiny bit more power... I guess a dual core would help with HD videos and Flash but wait... no Flash on the iPhone
But seriously, I'm more after features and connectivity rather than raw CPU power. WTF am I gonna use it for, play Angry Birds and NFS on my phone?
EDIT: "CPU processor" = "central processing unit processor"... did you just create a processor that processes CPUs?
EDIT: "CPU processor" = "central processing unit processor"... did you just create a processor that processes CPUs?
I stepped into that.
1) I think Samsung make Apple's mobile screens so I guess that determines their resolution?
2) Can we please for once have a modern computer with a wide gamut display? To me being able to see colours as they were intended is just as important as resolution, if not more so.
An ultrabook with rapid startup, decent RAM, 64-bit Windows 8, a screen of 1200 or more pixels and capable of displaying 100% of sRGB - I'd part with the best part of a grand for that!
1) I think Samsung make Apple's mobile screens so I guess that determines their resolution?2) Can we please for once have a modern computer with a wide gamut display? To me being able to see colours as they were intended is just as important as resolution, if not more so.An ultrabook with rapid startup, decent RAM, 64-bit Windows 8, a screen of 1200 or more pixels and capable of displaying 100% of sRGB - I'd part with the best part of a grand for that!
I don't think we'll see it for a while, but Apple is getting closer. The The 13" MacBook Air's 1400x900 display is rated well. It'd undoubtedly cost more to make a screen that could display 100% sRGB...and they'd probably not put such in an Ultrabook for ~$1K.
Halfway through posting this I looked this up and was very surprised at how well the Apple laptops did, especially the MacBook Air. My 2011 15" MBP didn't do great, but didn't do bad, especially comparatively.