Skip to main content

Farewell to consumer electronics laptops

My defunct Sony laptop, designed, as the label says,
for Windows 98
There has been an interesting evolution in the world of laptops - one that you might not even have noticed. It's a kind of mass extinction.

Back in the old days, when luggable PCs and laptops first entered the market (yes, I can remember than far back), there were two distinct types of manufacturer involved in electronics. Computer makers, mostly American - whether traditional (IBM, say) or newly minted (Compaq, Dell etc.) made computers - while consumer manufacturers, mostly from the far east, made things like TV sets and stereos.

It was a mystery why those consumer electronics giants never got into computing in a big way, but for some reason they only seriously took on one segment of the market - laptops. And they were very good at it. The first (actually, the only) laptop I ever bought was a top of the range Sony. It lasted me 10 years and was brilliant. It was also the consumer manufacturers (as opposed to the business-dominated computer firms) who realised it might be a good idea to bring out low cost netbooks and who, apart from Apple, dominated the stylish end of the market.

The big three were Sony (always the top end option), Samsung and Toshiba. But Sony pulled out of the market a few years ago, then Samsung followed suit. And now Toshiba is ceasing to make consumer laptops (they say they intend to stay in the business market - but it would seem an odd long-term decision). All three are now gone.

What has happened? It's certainly true that desktop computer sales have plummeted, while Apple and Microsoft's high end tablets have nibbled away at a segment of the laptop market. But laptop sales remain pretty solid with around 165 million laptops and Chromebooks selling in 2015. So why this very focussed move away? I can only suggest that the consumer electronics companies have never been comfortable with the sheer complexity and support requirements of PCs - far greater than, say, a TV set. Nor, more importantly, have they liked the need to deal so closely with a third party - Microsoft or lately Google - for their operating systems.

This may come down to control. In the old days when there was a good range of MP3 players before phones took over the role, Sony's were always notable because their software took over. This wasn't such a surprise with iPods, because Apple operated in a closed world, but it didn't matter because they did it slickly. However, almost every non-Apple player treated the MP3 player as a storage device, pop your MP3s on it with, say, Windows Media Player and you were away. To use Sony's MP3 players, you had to use Sony's proprietary (and awful) software to handle all the interactions.

It seems companies like Sony didn't like giving over control to Windows, or whatever is running on the associated computer and needed to impose their grip, allegedly to make things easier, but in practice making their products less useful. And it wouldn't be too much of a surprise if the demise of the consumer electronics laptop was similarly because the companies involved were used to controlling their own devices through their own software and never became comfortable with the separate hardware and software PC model.

Whatever the reason, it's a shame.


Comments

  1. I have an old Dell - perhaps 15 years old - stuffed in the back of a cupboard, unused for many years. I took it out the other day and my first thought was the weight. To think that I carried that round the world with me. The charger is heavier than my modern MacBook. Dell, unlike others that you point out, are still selling laptops. I was never entirely convinced with the customer support however - may be it's improved in 15 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of the are still quite heavy (trying carrying a gaming laptop!). Indeed Dell and others are still selling laptops - but they are in the computer manufacturer class, rather than the consumer electronics class.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense