Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on September 28, 2013 11:23 am wrote:
> Sure, they copy things that Apple has found a market for. Tangible things that make a difference
> in the form factor or in the usability of a product.

Actually, no. What they copy is mostly the stuff that is a) cheap to do
and b) doesn't make a difference. Like the aluminum veneer on my plastic-bodied
HP laptop. And the integrated-button touchpad, which has the most god-awful
hard-to-press noisy action ever. It *looks* like Apple's stuff, but without
the actual functionality of Apple's design. It's the cargo cult theory of product
design: if I make something that loooks like an Apple, I'll get Apple's profits.
And it hasn't worked. MacbookAir succeeds, but Ultrabooks fail.

Now personally, I'll accept the deficiencies of these knock-off products because
I'm a cheapskate who doesn't want to pay $1500 for MacbookPro when I can get
something mostly ok for $600. But I'm not blind to the differences, and I can
understand why a lot of people are willing to pay a premium for the Apple experience.

Two particularly desirable features of current Apple laptops are not being copied
AFAIK - higher resolution screens, and the magnetic power jack. Both of those
are totally fantastic (my last two HP laptops suffered power jack failures, and
they're so common that there are a number of businesses doing nothing but power-jack
repairs).

>Using ARM rather than x86 does neither.

ARM in itself doesn't help. But the profusion of low-cost low-power highly-
integrated ARM SoCs with ok cpu's and good GPU's helps a lot. And saving money
on the cpu/gpu/chipset gives the opportunity to offer higher quality screen/keyboard/
case at the same price point; and saving power gives the opportunity for lower
weight, smaller form factor, longer battery life. Compare Surface Pro to iPad.

Also the more open Android software ecosystem offers manufacturers what they
see as an opportunity to differentiate their products, add value, and develop
brand loyalty in a way that Windows prohibits. The Kindle Fire is a good example;
Samsung's Touchwiz and HTC's Sense may be bad examples :-)
>
> Why should, say Dell for example, follow Apple with an ARM laptop? (assuming Apple makes
> one) How is it going to be a sales advantage for Dell to say "ARM inside"? The only
> reason they'd do it is to sell them cheaper, but putting an ARM SoC in a $200 laptop
> isn't exactly following Apple, since they'd be putting one in the $999 Air.

Dell would probably be the last to try it, given their long reliance on an intimate
relationship with Intel, and their focus on corporate sales. But Samsung are
already trying it with the Chromebook, Acer are making tablets.

And yes, it wouldn't exactly be copying Apple, not just because they'd be at a different
price point, but because they wouldn't have the 20 years or so of development
behind the MacOSX/iOS software. But as I said above, this cargo-cult decision
making isn't necessarily rational, and while I'm sure that a lot of companies will
*try* to follow what Apple does, I'm sure that most will fail and I'm not sure
that any will succeed in a big way. Though Samsung's success in smartphones shows
that such success is at least possible.

> If Apple switched to ARM SoCs in the Air, they would be doing it to take more control over the overall design
> (hardware + software) of their products, but the PC makers don't care about that. The PC makers don't use
> much of the control they do have over the design of their products, let alone want to take more. That's
> why Intel has to spoon feed them everything, like they did the Ultrabook concept. Or Microsoft has to push
> them forward, like they used to with the PCxx requirements. There'd probably still be some PCs shipping with
> PS2 keyboards if they weren't forced forward by Microsoft requirements and Intel southbridge changes.

Sometimes Intel and Microsoft push them forward. Other times they hold them back,
as when Intel specified maximum screen resolution for systems using "netbook" Atom
cpu's. Either way, those decisions are based entirely on what is best for
Intel and Microsoft. And the outcome is an industry where Wintel PC manufacturing is a
lousy unprofitable business for everyone downstream from Intel and Microsoft.