I have been reading a lot about 7", 8" and 9" laptops that cost about INR 15,000 or so. Name like the EEPC and the HCL variants, and now one from Sahara computers are jostling to introduce newer models of 9". But one look at these models and it strikes me that even with a 9" screen the space left out on the sides of the screens is quite considerable -- at least a centimeter and a half , if not more more. Clearly, if that space is utilised, the screen size would increase. Then why isn't it being done? It is to give the impression that the laptop is smaller than it actually is? Afterall with all the hoopla about the screen size, it is quite easy to forget that the laptop is actually much bigger than its screen?
Laptops Are we being duped?
- Thread starter pause
- Start date
techie_007
Skilled
bigger screen: more cost + less runnin time 
yeah if they give a bigger screen..it would cost more and give less backup....
superczar
Skilled
Proper Small factor PCs tend to be a lote more expensive than their mainstram 14/15" counterparts
The Sony TZ , LG C1 , the ultra tiny Fujitsus etc all run north of $2000
Manufacturers will obviously have to cut some corners to offer the EEPC or similar at prices even lower than the mainstream models
You can't really call that being duped..can you?
The Sony TZ , LG C1 , the ultra tiny Fujitsus etc all run north of $2000
Manufacturers will obviously have to cut some corners to offer the EEPC or similar at prices even lower than the mainstream models
You can't really call that being duped..can you?
If they pair this one with a 13.3 or a 15.4" screen, then it would enter the medium cost entry level laptop. The performance would not be great by any stretch of imagination compared to other laptops in that range.
The asus eeepc is good enough as an internet pc. i.e to send and recv emails and edit documents.
The asus eeepc is good enough as an internet pc. i.e to send and recv emails and edit documents.
I would not call it duping but it certainly isn't a good thing to me as the screen is a biggest part of the user experience when one uses a laptop. I would not want to encourage such a concept no matter how one spins it eg: better battery, cheaper etc. A small screen can really put one off from using a laptop for long periods of time with eye strain, reduced productivity vs a regular laptop etc.
This was a pilot project by Asus and I can forgive them for it for the first release of their product. But I would not like to see it implemented anywhere else.
I guess Asus has responded to feedback of the first time users and rectified these problems with their next release. The 9 inch eeePC is seeming more and more better to me each day. Now if they would just reduce the cost :hap5: .
This was a pilot project by Asus and I can forgive them for it for the first release of their product. But I would not like to see it implemented anywhere else.
I guess Asus has responded to feedback of the first time users and rectified these problems with their next release. The 9 inch eeePC is seeming more and more better to me each day. Now if they would just reduce the cost :hap5: .
Price is definitely a factor, but how much would a company really save by chipping a few centimeters off the screen? end of the day, the bulk of the pricing (as far as material costs are involved) is determined by the processor, and by the OS (in this case OS cost is nil). Also, as far as power consumption is concerned, what is more important -- ease of use or a very slight power edge? I think that companies would have noticed this in the design stage itself, but did little. First there was 7", then 8" and now 9", which goes to show that they have been making a progress to providing the full screen size as can be afforded by the product. So why didn't they do it earlier? I'd call it duping because this is something they would have been clearly aware of right after the design stage and never did much to rectify it. Unless that is, they began with the idea :Let's make a 7" laptop", then realised that they couldn't make it that small, so increased the size but kept the screen size the same. Now that is worse.
Hacker
Skilled
pause said:
Why dont you find out for us and post it here.
Btw multiply that few centimeters by few million eeepcs.
Do you know how to run a business, its not easy.
Dont be an armchair expert. To all your what if questions, what if no one bought eeepc, what if eeepc was big failure.
Asus had no idea that the eeepc would be a big success.
Btw you need to study economies of scale first.
Gurpartap Singh
Adept
Don't they also need to maintain standard ratio for width and height of the screen? If so, maybe that's the reason for that decent size of 8.9'' on ASUS' eeepc 900
and then multiply that with INR 15,000. I won't determine the profit, but it would be a very substantial one
I doubt if that is the sentiment Asus started out with. they knew it would click, or they wouldn't have done it. And ahem, fear of failure made them decrease the screen size!!!! Dude
Really? i thought all that was required was some common sense. Tell me which laptops cost more -- 15.4" or 14"? Ans: anyone could cost more because there is no difference/variation in technology between a 14" or a 15.4" and material costs are negligible. You pay INR 10 for a blank CD which would cost the manufacturer less that INR 0.25 to make (all costs included -- economics of scale. Oh yeah!). Similarly, for a manufacturer, the cost of production between a 9" screen or a 11" screen would be negligible too -- because the machinery is there and it can be easily set to produce screens of any size and all they'd need is a bit more polymers and crystal molecules. Not quite enough to make them bankrupt.
It isn't that tough either. Unless you begin with the "What if the product fails" sentiment. In that case you'd better go back to your old company and to your comfortable cubicle.
Well, that could be a very good reason. Thanks Gurpratap!
But if you have say 2 centimeters space all around, then you have enough space to increase the screen size without making it out of proportion.Gurpartap Singh
Adept
pause said:Well, that could be a very good reason. Thanks Gurpratap!
Moreover, there are standards on sizes. And these standards in an way beneficial for consumers, because of availability of products which depend on the size of a screen, like touch screen panels, etc. So this adds another reason why companies can't go with their own sizes..
Hacker
Skilled
pause said:I doubt if that is the sentiment Asus started out with. they knew it would click, or they wouldn't have done it. And ahem, fear of failure made them decrease the screen size!!!! Dude
They knew it would click???
How do you know that, post some links to back up your statements.
Btw eeepc was designed to compete with olpc and intel's classmate pc, all of them have 7" screens. But you say that fear of failure made them decrease the screen size, Ofcourse you are the expert. We believe you.
pause said:
Again how do you know that, post some links possibly from the third party manufacturers of the lcd screen.
pause said:It isn't that tough either. Unless you begin with the "What if the product fails" sentiment. In that case you'd better go back to your old company and to your comfortable cubicle.
isnt tough either
hyeah: N this is why you will never get the job of a Risk assessment manager.