PC obsolescence is obsolete • Hacker News Board

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#121

Post by keithpeter » Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 5:26 PM UTC

JackC wrote: post #65

keithpeter wrote: post #58

Let's turn this thread on its head Does anyone think a desktop PC with a 20 year life is possible now? What kind of design?

If nothing else, I think power consumption is a dealbreaker for a 20-year desktop PC. In (say) five years, there will be an iPhone with the same specs, and then you'll be running a desktop PC for 15 years at 100 times the power consumption for no reason. A good analogy is the way otherwise perfectly-good CRTs disappeared so quickly in favor of relatively expensive and low-contrast flat-panels. I'm using extreme numbe…

Interesting view which I had not thought of previously in quite that way.

Devil's advocate: My old workstation has a 440w power supply but uses much less than that most of the time. A small percentage of the total electrical power that my house uses. What pressure is there to switch the workstation for a more efficient PC?

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#122

Post by Silhouette » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 10:00 AM UTC

jfb wrote: post #92

Silhouette wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the market segmentation argument, but I fail to see how shipping a new generation of product, at a higher price than the previous generation, where the analogous model from the previous generation was unambiguously and objectively superior in specification, can possibly be benefitting anyone who buys the new, more expensive, inferior device.

Example?

Try Googling a bit for nVidia and terms like GPGPU and CUDA.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#123

Post by ctdonath » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 9:35 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #107

ctdonath wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

produce desirable hardware that people buy for non-technical reasons instead of raw figures Of late I've been contending that specs are excuses admitting inadequacy. Until recently, every new computer (broadly defined) was listed with a proliferation of specifications (_.__MHz CPU _GB RAM ___GB HD ...). Now, in particular with the iPad and trending with other machines, no specifications (beyond what amounts to "small…

I disagree with you here - PC makers list specs because it is technical specs, rather than user experience, that set their product apart from competing PC makers. I mean, you compare a Dell laptop to an HP laptop, or a $500 Dell laptop to an $800 Dell laptop for that matter, they're all running Windows 7. How would you market one product over another without admitting their differences? Admittedly, PC makers might be…

How would you market one product over another without admitting their differences?

Subjective experience. Most people don't compare horsepower & engine volume & torque & etc. in cars, they just walk into a showroom, try out a few, and go "I'll take that one."

Apple is winning despite not "admitting their differences" in speed, capacity, etc. vs HP vs Dell vs Dell. Apple's opposition have to resort to mutual fights over specifications precisely because they don't have anything better to appeal to; give the user specifications so good they don't care, refine the end-to-end experience, cut costs without cutting quality & experience, and buyers will flock.

Anecdote: I loved Sony products. Raved about them for years. Finally gave up because enough corners (hardware, software, UX) were cut that my enthusiasm was shredded.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#124

Post by michaelt » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 9:48 AM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #123

michaelt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you here - PC makers list specs because it is technical specs, rather than user experience, that set their product apart from competing PC makers. I mean, you compare a Dell laptop to an HP laptop, or a $500 Dell laptop to an $800 Dell laptop for that matter, they're all running Windows 7. How would you market one product over another without admitting their differences? Admittedly, PC makers might be…

How would you market one product over another without admitting their differences? Subjective experience. Most people don't compare horsepower & engine volume & torque & etc. in cars, they just walk into a showroom, try out a few, and go "I'll take that one." Apple is winning despite not "admitting their differences" in speed, capacity, etc. vs HP vs Dell vs Dell. Apple's opposition have to resort to mutual fights ov…

Let me put it another way: Ignore Apple for a minute, consider just the market for Windows laptops. The subjective experience will always be, at its core, the experience of using a vanilla install of Windows 7.

To use a car analogy, imagine all car makers built their car on a Toyota Camry chassis. They can put in any engine they like (that's your CPU and whatnot), they can paint it and add aftermarket body kits (that's your keyboard, trackpad and plastic screen bezel) and they can hang an air freshener from the rear view mirror (that's your preinstalled software like the 30 day McAfee trial). The Toyota Camry chassis is Windows.

Ultimately, all those Camry-based cars are going to have a very similar driver experience because, at it's core, it's a Camry. When one Camry-based-car maker is competing with another they talk about paint job and engine because the paint and the engine are the only differences between their products.

Apple, in this analogy, is the only major car maker that isn't building on a Toyota Camry chassis.