Acer Taiwan’s president Scott Lin and Compal’s equivalent Ray Chen have both put out public complaints that Intel isn’t cutting chip prices to let their ultrabooks compete with the MacBook Air. Lin insisted that Acer and other Windows PC builders couldn’t get below $1,000 with their ultraportables without a subsidy while meeting the performance targets.
Remember when Apple stuff was “overpriced”? Only if you consider paying for quality to be superfluous…
But anyway I wonder how Apple would react if Intel subsidized their competitors (monopoly abuse much?) and what their agreements with Intel say about selling them components at a higher price. Somehow I doubt that Apple’s aggreements with their manufacturers don’t include a clause specifying that they get at least as good a deal as anyone else.
Anyway, why should Intel care who sells their processors as long as someone is selling them?
Michael Dell in an interview Sunday [free reg. required] took a stance that there was no such thing as a post-PC era. In spite of struggling PC sales, he argued to the FT that the PC industry was still growing, particularly in developing countries like China. Smartphones and tablets weren’t “necessarily” replacing PCs, and long-term forecasts suggested that would stay the case for years to come, he said.
Remember when RIM’s co-CEO was saying that everything was OK, that iDevices weren’t that big of a deal and there was going to be a huge growth for RIM in developing markets that would make up for losses in the “developed markets”?
Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.