A year on, Ultrabooks are a worse disaster than most expected

[piesquared]

Lets face it, Ultrabooks have failed because they are a fundamentally bad idea based on nothing more than Intel’s greed and fear. Intel is trying to compete against tablets and phones, and doesn’t have a clue how to do it. Ultrabooks are failing because there is no reason to buy one over a tablet or phone. Why? There are lots of reasons, but that is a separate topic. Lets just say that Intel is slavishly toeing the failed Microsoft line and not offering the consumer any real benefits. To compound the problem, they are jacking up their prices to unpalatable levels while squeezing any hope of profit from the OEMs. As we said over a year ago, there is no possibility of this debacle succeeding

This has been true for years Inetl has been plundering consumers ever since they started their anticompetitive culture a couple decades ago. Force feeding their slide show projectors on consumers and stalling innovations for decades, sabatoging the humanitarian effort of One Laptop Per Child, the list goes on and on.

When it came to tech, Intel pointed out that the initial Ultrabook designs were just that, a first attempt. The real versions would come out in about a year when Ivy Bridge CPUs hit the market. By then, the money they were investing in the Ultrabook Fund would drop tooling costs radically as volumes spiked, and the new “do everything” Ultrabooks would change my mind. They didn’t mention how the funds contractually exclude manufacturers from working with AMD, but that is another tangent. We laughed

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/02/a-year-on-ultrabooks-are-a-worse-disaster-than-most-expected/

 

[CHADBOGA]

This has been true for years Inetl has been plundering consumers ever since they started their anticompetitive culture a couple decades ago. Force feeding their slide show projectors on consumers and stalling innovations for decades, sabatoging the humanitarian effort of One Laptop Per Child, the list goes on and on.



http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/02/a-year-on-ultrabooks-are-a-worse-disaster-than-most-expected/

LOL the disaster for you and Chuckles is that Ultrabooks are an area where AMD is too hopeless to compete against Intel.

 

[NTMBK]

Meh, Charlie's usual anti-Intel spew. His rants are just getting boring. He turned down the opportunity to actually test a damn Ultrabook because he insisted on running Linux on it (with the broken Intel Linux graphics drivers, so he could get a chance to complain about them again)- when the vast, vast majority of actual users would be running Windows? Ugh.

However, one interesting tidbit did come out of all that:

The top ULV Haswell has to pay for marketing of a the new CPU brand of that Intel is going to announce soon.

Hmmm, interesting. Intel going to bring out a Core i9? Maybe a Core i11, so they have a Bigger Number than AMD's A10? (We all know that's the reason AMD went with A4,6,8 in the first place- bigger numbers = more sales. Sigh.)

 

[piesquared]

LOL the disaster for you and Chuckles is that Ultrabooks are an area where AMD is too hopeless to compete against Intel.

What you call hopeless the rest of the world calls impossible, since inetl has blocked competition. Again.

 

[CHADBOGA]

What you call hopeless the rest of the world calls impossible, since inetl has blocked competition. Again.

Are you dyslexic?

Intel has nothing to do with AMD's inability to produce CPU's with the desirable performance/watt characteristics that people want.

 

[Phynaz]

Yeah, Intel is only going to sell 10 million and change Ultrabook CPU's this year. I believe that one small segment to be the about the size of AMD's entire mobile portfolio shipments for the year. How's Lano selling again?

 

[piesquared]

LOL the disaster for you and Chuckles is that Ultrabooks are an area where AMD is too hopeless to compete against Intel.

Yeah, Intel is only going to sell 10 million and change Ultrabook CPU's this year. I believe that one small segment to be the about the size of AMD's entire mobile portfolio shipments for the year. How's Lano selling again?

300% lower than expectations is a disaster no matter how you hard you dream otherwise.

 

[Greenlepricon]

Intel makes good products. There's no doubt about that. AMD's are a little worse, but serve their purpose for a reduced price because this is the biggest advantage they have when competing. Ultrabooks have nothing to do with comparing the two. The main problem with ultrabooks goes back to the price premium you have to pay to get one. Intel for some reason thought that it would be a good idea to add a couple hundred dollars to the price of what they're worth. I'm not sure if Haswell is going to help improve this, but Intel really needs to get their product in order for this sector. Despite having amazing cpu's, they aren't worth quite as much as Intel wishes in this case.

 

[frozentundra123456]

This has been true for years Inetl has been plundering consumers ever since they started their anticompetitive culture a couple decades ago. Force feeding their slide show projectors on consumers and stalling innovations for decades, sabatoging the humanitarian effort of One Laptop Per Child, the list goes on and on.



http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/02/a-year-on-ultrabooks-are-a-worse-disaster-than-most-expected/

I can tell you there are plenty of reasons to use an ultrabook rather than a tablet or smartphone, like a real keyboard, real OS, and the ability to actually do something useful rather than just chat on facebook and surf the web. And I do have a tablet. It is very nice in some ways, but the more I try to use it the more I realize its limitations vs a true laptop running windows.

Whether ultrabooks are a good value vs other laptops depends on how much you will be carrying it around.

 

[jvroig]

@OP:

Covered in DailyTech here. I'm not sure where you got "300% lower" from. 22M estimate down to 10.3M seems to be the quoted figure, and that's closer to "50% lower" than "300% lower", unless perhaps you are using different figures from different sources other than ISuppli.


Personally, I like Ultrabooks for the almost netbook-like battery life, I am thinking of getting one for my next laptop. Despite my personal preference, It does not remove the fact that it does carry a price premium that consumers seem to not want to bite into. It certainly does not carry any sort of "Apple magic" (in the words of Charlie, "not a MacBook Air"), and Intel seems to be unable to create a similar mystique around their Ultrabook brand to make them sell like Apple's MacBook Air. I don't want them to stop trying though. Even if the earlier generations seemed to have come up short of expectations, I'd rather they keep banging at it until they find a better formula.

 

[pelov]

There's a whole lot wrong with the Ultrabook platform, but that doesn't mean Intel doesn't make the better microprocessors. They're quite clearly way ahead of AMD in nearly all respects, with the only exception being on-die GPU performance which is a gap that will close with Haswell. AMD is in big trouble, but that doesn't make Ultrabooks any less crappy.

Let's list off the issues, shall we?

- the specifications for Ultrabooks are all over the place. Technically they're supposed to be thin and small, ~13.3" diagonal. Currently there are Ultrabooks of all sizes, ranging from 11.6>15.6

- Weight. If something is ultraportable then it should weigh less. Most Ultrabooks barely outweigh their 35W counterparts with the same diagonal screen sizes and similar dimensions. Sometimes they're even heavier...

- If it's going to be Ultraportable than it should have better battery life. 17W ULV chips might not chug lots of power at full load, but because most computing is done at a variety of P-states, mostly those at the bottom, the idle power consumption figures being roughly equal, Ultrabooks end up having less battery life than regular laptops of the same size. This is because there's less room to fit a bigger battery in a thin form factor.

- mSATA caching is great but it hasn't brought prices down. It also offers wacky performance depending on how you use your PC. A standard SSD is always the better choice here.

- The processing power is fine, but for any lengthy load you're going to suffer from pretty serious throttling due to TDP constraints. This gets doubly worse when the GPU in tandem, resulting in serious jitters when gaming.

- Proprietary SSDs, WiFi cards, and inaccessible components. That's just a big no-no. Not only does this drive prices up but this also serves to piss off pretty much everyone.

- Price. If you're going to offer me an ultraportable computing platform that offers less performance, lower battery life and other hassles -- throttling, fan noise and piss-poor keyboards due to how thin Ultrabooks have to be -- at the least make it cheaper. Rincluding weight and battery life.ight now you get maybe twice the performance of a netbook at the same or less battery life for far more than twice the price.

The only advantage I see is that it's "sexy." Past the fact that it's thinner than my brand new ThinkPad X220, an Ultrabook offers absolutely nothing. In fact, it's a step backwards in nearly every single measure, including weight and battery life.

The issue with Intel's Ultrabooks has less to do with the processors, although Haswell will certainly address some of the kinks here, but it has everything to do with loose standards as to what qualifies as an Ultrabook. Instead of opting to give a standout feature that separates them from ultraportable-class laptops, Intel has just made them thinner... and that's it.

I've thought about this extensively as I was looking to buy an Ultrabook over the summer. There was absolutely nothing that I wanted. My X220 has a way better keyboard, 13-14 hour battery life, a heavenly matte IPS screen, durability, light weight (3.5lbs), better processing power, and all of this for just under $700.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

That's about as much Llano units AMD moves, and they use those for all their normal notebooks. Ultrabooks are a relatively niche market, so the fact they're selling as much means it's had good reception so far.

 

[pelov]

That's about as much Llano units AMD moves, and they use those for all their normal notebooks. Ultrabooks are a relatively niche market, so the fact they're selling as much means it's had good reception so far.

They're definitely a niche market, which sucks, frankly, because there's a lot of potential there. If Intel were to set a strict set of standards and a few standout features that you can't get elsewhere, Ultrabooks have the potential to take off. "Thin" isn't a standout feature when it comes at the cost of essentially everything else.

 

[Zargon]

They're definitely a niche market, which sucks, frankly, because there's a lot of potential there. If Intel were to set a strict set of standards and a few standout features that you can't get elsewhere, Ultrabooks have the potential to take off. "Thin" isn't a standout feature when it comes at the cost of essentially everything else.

they started that way, and then failed


the original lines were pretty well set to all be almost identical

now there are 'ultra-book-lites(mor elike heavies) that are too big, cache drives instead of full SSD ETC

actual specd ultrabooks are preety nice, of course, hard to go wrong with an i7 and an SSD in a lightweight package

 

[Olikan]

That's about as much Llano units AMD moves, and they use those for all their normal notebooks. Ultrabooks are a relatively niche market, so the fact they're selling as much means it's had good reception so far.

you know, for intel this is indeed bad...

if it was amd, they would be very happy XD

 

[pelov]

they started that way, and then failed


the original lines were pretty well set to all be almost identical

now there are 'ultra-book-lites(mor elike heavies) that are too big, cache drives instead of full SSD ETC

actual specd ultrabooks are preety nice, of course, hard to go wrong with an i7 and an SSD in a lightweight package

Well, certain drawbacks were always there. For example, price was always too high for what it offered. Furthermore, the battery life, too, wasn't that great. 7 hours? I get double that with only half a pound in added weight with a 35W CPU Then there's the poor keyboards due to lack of feedback, the constant whirling of the fan due to the thin intake/exhausts, the idiotic choice of using aluminum on the bottom panel, transferring heat to your crotch and killing sperm like only a MacBook Pro can.

Had Intel came out with the Ultrabook and offered the wireless charging they planning to implement in the next generation or two then that would have raised an eyebrow. As they stand, it's just thinner and that's the only benefit. I'm not at all surprised the sales figures are poor.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

They're definitely a niche market, which sucks, frankly, because there's a lot of potential there. If Intel were to set a strict set of standards and a few standout features that you can't get elsewhere, Ultrabooks have the potential to take off. "Thin" isn't a standout feature when it comes at the cost of essentially everything else.

you know, for intel this is indeed bad...

if it was amd, they would be very happy XD

The main problem for Intel and the platform is the costs. I haven't seen any Ultrabooks being offered with a ULV Core i3, and I'm sure that alone would bring the costs down by $100. If they weren't so restrictive on chassis thickness, which affects costs of other components like the motherboard, and the use of metal, it could be brought down another $50-100. With these changes we could get to a $600-650 price, and Intel would keep their margins. AMD tried to do something similar with the 25W Trinity, but it looks like it didn't take off. If they competed at this price Intel would still win because of the brand name and higher CPU performance.

But then it'd be difficult to differentiate it from an ultra-portable.

 

[MisterMac]

I find it ironic charlie already has the big intel rant comments closed.


He's only writing that [piece] for views clearly.



Wondering if AMD had a finger in it?
(Not saying Charlie is a AMD shill, but let's call him a mercenary for hire at least - in the techy news pr crowd).

No profanity in the tech forums, please.

Moderator jvroig

 

[piesquared]

Intel makes good products. There's no doubt about that. AMD's are a little worse, but serve their purpose for a reduced price because this is the biggest advantage they have when competing. Ultrabooks have nothing to do with comparing the two. The main problem with ultrabooks goes back to the price premium you have to pay to get one. Intel for some reason thought that it would be a good idea to add a couple hundred dollars to the price of what they're worth. I'm not sure if Haswell is going to help improve this, but Intel really needs to get their product in order for this sector. Despite having amazing cpu's, they aren't worth quite as much as Intel wishes in this case.

I'm not sure price even makes a difference. I think tablets are taking their toll on thin and light laptops. Inetl is right, that category is about fashion but that crowd bought tablets or ipads and Mac Book air users bought more MB airs instead.

 

[pelov]

Oh yea, but it's already not much different than an ultraportable. Like I said, my X220 offers far more and then some in essentially every aspect worth noting for mobile computing, namely battery life and weight, yet the Ultrabooks are the more expensive product and they offer less?

Really, they have to differentiate them in the other direction, I think. Rather than getting too close to an ultraportable, which it already is, they need to make them closer to tablets and at the tablet price range. Sort of like Microsoft's Surface, minus the idiotic Win8 OS. Unless they can bring the price down to ARM-level, it won't stand a chance. If somebody wants a portable device with lengthy battery life and a plethora of applications they'll buy an iPad or an Android tablet. If they need a mobile work computer then they buy a laptop. An Ultrabook fits in the middle without providing any significant advantage over either form factor.

Pick one or the other, IMO.

Just to give you an idea of just how poorly they're priced atm, I can buy Google Nexus tablet or Kindle Fire and still be under the price for an Ultrabook while having two devices that are better at mobile computing than an Ultrabook.

 

[piesquared]

I find it ironic charlie already has the big intel rant comments closed.


He's only writing that [piece] for views clearly.



Wondering if AMD had a finger in it?
(Not saying Charlie is a AMD shill, but let's call him a mercenary for hire at least - in the techy news pr crowd).

Trolls closed the comments on all articles a week ago.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Trolls closed the comments on all articles a week ago.

It was trolls writing the articles.

BTW are you dyslexic?

Inetl is right, that category is about fashion but that crowd bought tablets or ipads and Mac Book air users bought more MB airs instead.

 

[pelov]

It was trolls writing the articles.

Forget Charlie, he's an idiot. Look up and see my post to see what's wrong with Ultrabooks. There's no doubt that the OP is a bumbling AMD fanboy, but that doesn't mean Intel hasn't royally screwed up the Ultrabook platform as a whole.

I'm hoping the Wintel divorce ends in a messy fashion and Intel starts to dictate how OEMs design products. Maybe even delve a bit more into Linux...

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I'm not sure price even makes a difference. I think tablets are taking their toll on thin and light laptops. Inetl is right, that category is about fashion but that crowd bought tablets or ipads and Mac Book air users bought more MB airs instead.

Tablets are still pretty much unusable for any real work. With a keyboard dock their price jumps by $100-150, and they're not nearly as good for typing on as laptop, nor are productivity apps nearly as fully featured.

What I really wish Intel would've done is lower the idle power consumption of the platform. Even if this may seem unreal, the ULV and Standard voltage processors use about the same amount of power on idle and normal use, and in some cases the standard voltage system may even use less. The problem is, since Ultrabooks are so thin, they have small batteries. That means they only get about 6-7 hours of battery life.

I have a kill-a-watt, and some weeks ago I did some tests regarding power consumption:

Idle:

• 14" laptop with Core i5-2410M (standard voltage)=8-9W.
• 11.6" ultra-portable with i3-330UM (ultra low voltage)=9-10W.

Full load (CPU + IGP):

• 14" laptop with Core i5-2410M=47W.
• 11.6"ultra-portable with i3-330UM= 25W.

I know this isn't directly comparable because one is based on Sandy Bridge and the other on Nehalem, but you get a good idea. The new 11.6" Ultrabooks would use the same power as the 14" laptop, or maybe a watt less. At idle there's pretty much no difference between an ULV and standard voltage processor, which is why Ultrabooks don't have that great battery life. When you're using your system normally it spends most of its time idle, and that's where the processors are the closest on power consumption.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Forget Charlie, he's an idiot. Look up and see my post to see what's wrong with Ultrabooks. There's no doubt that the OP is a bumbling AMD fanboy, but that doesn't mean Intel hasn't royally screwed up the Ultrabook platform as a whole.

I'm hoping the Wintel divorce ends in a messy fashion and Intel starts to dictate how OEMs design products. Maybe even delve a bit more into Linux...

No doubt that Ultrabooks aren't where they should be yet.

I know I want the following at least, in any future Ultrabook, and until it is available, then there is no point in buying one.

1. Full sized HDMI out
2. Ethernet Connection
3. Genuine 7+ hours battery life
4. 1.3kg or less total weight on 13.3" model