[al_biglan]

The market forces around laptops would seem to be a ripe area for serious academic study. I honestly can't find a laptop I _want_ to buy only ones I weigh silly trade-offs. (to be fair: my biggest complaint is around the lack of keyboard choices). It seems that the market desires either can't drive laptop options, or the market is vastly different than I perceive. For example: Why did it take so long for 720 screens to die as an option? For $50 more you get a 1080. I watched this for 6 years (2009 to 2014) and really can't fathom it.

Now... this is for Windows based machines, and I'm sure the forces are different for Apple, but it would be lovely to read a serious study on this. I suspect there is something along the lines of cost and supply chain factors dominating the "refresh cycle" but this used to be handled by different product lines with wildly different configurations. (it still kinda is... Alienware vs Inspiron vs Yoga vs T vs P series but Apple seems to buck this trend completely) Anyway... I just need the cathartic release of posting (venting) with these laptop articles.

[lotsofpulp]

My theory behind this is that the most efficient functioning market needs intelligent buyers and sellers. The buyers have to be able to discern what the specs mean, what the quality of the parts are, what the expected lifetime is, and with computers not only that, but they have to be able to evaluate the software options (Windows vs OS X, malware subsidized laptops versus not)? Even explaining malware to a layman is difficult.

So you had the two markets, business and professional consumers who knew what they were buying, and then regular consumers who mostly cared about price but are also swayed by large numbers (more GB, more HZ, bigger screen, more software a.k.a. malware).

Then I think the tide sort of turned in the past decade where even the common populace had realized Windows consumer laptops were full of crap that caused it to run slow and unexpectedly and people noticed Apple's laptops were more consistent with user experience (which they were), so now Apple has a reputation of being the no nonsense brand (which they deserve). Of course, now Apple can also charge a premium for this so you see people with disposable income sticking to Apple's ecosystem, and then the rest of the OEMs fight for price conscious consumers and getting barely any profit out of it.

Obviously for Apple, keeping things simple keeps their operating costs down, so they don't need to cater to every purchaser, and they probably decided that now they're the default brand to purchase if you have the money, they don't need to waste resources chasing after a small segment of the market looking for extremely high specifications.

[vishalh]

Companies use projections for how well the line up will perform when they refresh it. They might be optimizing for different factors so the underlying logic is not always obvious but you can get a fair idea about where they are coming from if you visit a big box retailer during a weekend and just watch the sales interactions that are taking place. The 'average' consumer's needs are vastly different from the HN crowd, and even among such 'average' consumers preferences can vary widely by geography (primarily because of the difference in income) - something that companies other than Apple try to cover with product lines.