PC obsolescence is obsolete

"Apple did not design and build a 1.5 mm thin LCD panel. They did, however, do something exceptional with the design of this display: rather than sandwich an LCD panel between a back case and a front glass, they used the aluminum case itself as the frame for the LCD panel and used the LCD as the front glass."

Remember your whole theory about iFixit debunking substantial weight savings? Turns out iFixit agrees with the OP and not with you.

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, medium, or large") are given. Why? specifications are needed to convince buyers the product is good enough when it isn't.

Most users just want something that's capable enough that they don't have to think about the technical limitations. Most users glaze over at random-looking numbers associated with meaningless abbreviations denoting implementation details they don't understand; their question isn't "how many gigahertz is the processor?" it's "if I click something will I be annoyed by the delay?" The real answer to the latter question is "yes, you will". To obscure that dissatisfying answer, sellers toss out the profusion of specifications in an attempt to convince buyers that the product is good enough to buy anyway. Users, able to at least evaluate whether X > Y, compare the numbers and convince themselves that those numbers are as large as they can be and still have an affordable package.

Apple's goal is to sell hardware. With the onset of "retina" displays, flash memory, multi-core processors, iCloud, etc. all those specifications transition from confusion to "good enough". Doesn't matter what the number of pixels are, you can't discern them so it's good enough. Doesn't matter what the storage capacity is, between terabytes local and near-bottomless cloud behind it you won't run out. Flash is so fast you mostly won't care. Processor speeds equal supercomputers of recent past. It's all "good enough" - making the comparison between Apple products and "lots of incomprehensible random numbers & abbreviations" easy.

PC makers still flaunting specifications are saying "no, really, it's good enough - see?" making customers hesitate their purchase. Apple is going for "details are irrelevant, it's good enough - period."

Additionally, I very much take issue with your statement that Crysis, a game released in 2007 is still the "standard" for graphics intensive games.

The games that are pushing the bounds of PC hardware are games like [1]The Witcher 2, games which are huge improvements on [2]Crysis.

[1]http://cdn.ripten.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/witcher2-20...

[2]http://oyster.ignimgs.com/ve3d/ve3d/image/article/745/745255...

Then a funny thing happened. The video game market outgrew the movie market. It started making financial sense to invest tens of millions in the development of a single game. The cost of the content (i.e. character designs, level designs, script, voice acting, motion capture, etc.) far outstripped the cost of coding the engine. It became a complete no-brainer to port games to as many platforms as possible to maximize your audience. The corollary to this is that it became necessary to design games such that it was possible to port them to as many platforms as possible. That meant that most developers stopped exclusively developing for one platform and instead started designing for them all. While you can always tack on some superficial eye-candy on when the hardware supports it, games could not be designed to have basic gameplay requiring more resources than the slowest platform was capable of. Thus, consoles became an anchor that brought the relentless march of PC game requirements to a screeching halt.

The Xbox360 and PS3, not to mention the Wii, are handily out-performed by today's desktops by a large degree. Mobile phones are poised to pass them within a couple of years! However, the games you can play on a PC are largely identical to the console versions. Sure, there are some improved graphics, additional content, etc., but these differences are superficial. In fact, if your hardware isn't the latest and greatest, most games can simply scale back the eye-candy to maintain performance. Even PC-only developers, such as Blizzard, have recognized that they must build games with conservative minimum requirements in today's market.

The end result is that PC gamers can run new games with only superficial inferiority to what the latest generation of desktop hardware is capable of. They no longer need to upgrade their desktops. At least, they won't until the next generation of consoles arrive. When that happens there will be many new games designed with greatly increased resources in mind and a big wave of desktop upgrades will ensue.

In the end, PC obsolescence isn't really dead. It's just quantized differently.