CES2011: IPS LCDs for the T61, T400 available? (!)

[beeblebrox]

Hi folks,

I haven't been on the forum for quite some time (too much work).
But I just got some news from the CES:

The new Kno (scientific tablet from Paul Allen), which features a single/double LCD.
In detail it says 14.1" 16:10 with IPS and 1440x900 pixels.

Of course, this makes me wonder if that fine LCD could possibly drop right into the T61, Z61t or T400 as well. Maybe with a bit of tweaking. I am sure that the LCD uses a standard LCD connector, maybe might need some ROM FLASH modifications.

In addition I am a bit upset by Lenovo: Mark Hopkins wrote that they have no chance to get a high quality flexview LCD and only by ordering at least 15.000 customer prepaid LCDs they might think about it. I swallowed that comment as an industry fact.

But how come that Apple can buy IPS LCDs according to their specs (ok, with 65 million units it is no problem), and now even Kno with a certainly very limited production?
At least Lenovo could introduce optional Flexviews with their T520 series in April, waddaya think?

[lophiomys]

Hi,
I think that would be a good idea, to have S-IPS options on the T400 and T500 and X300.
IMO it is bad that there are no new 4:3-format Thinkpads offered any more.
Even worse, if my information is correct, the model upgrades are even reducing
vertical heigt further to 16:9.

Concerning the 15000 preorders being discussed:
IMO it's outrageous by a multinational company to ask their long standing
premium customers to finance their very own product development.
If you consider that we are talking about features (= IPS screens) already on the
market in 2004!!!! I wouldn't want to accept this as an industry fact.
HP is able to offer IPS-Screens as DreamColor displays for their EliteBooks.
(See the articles on Anandtech.com).

I'd be ready to place a prepaid order for a good IPS-Thinkpad, but in return
I'd ask for an underwritten spec list, a prototype to test and some Lenovo premium shares.


(Update: fixed some typos)

[Puppy]

But how come that Apple can buy IPS LCDs according to their specs (ok, with 65 million units it is no problem), and now even Kno with a certainly very limited production?

This has been discussed here over and over to death. The reason is simple. Apple and Kno companies wants (are willing) to deliver top quality products to their customers. They are not trying to find silly excuses why it is not possible and blah blah. Lenovo does not want. The difference is to try to find solutions instead of excuses.

[penartur]

This has been discussed here over and over to death. The reason is simple. Apple and Kno companies wants (are willing) to deliver top quality products to their customers. They are not trying to find silly excuses why it is not possible and blah blah. Lenovo does not want. The difference is to try to find solutions instead of excuses.

There is a saying in Russia, "If you are so smart, then why are you so poor?"
Apple, Kno and Lenovo target completely different audiences with a completely different devices, there is no point in comparing these directly.
From that famous lenovo representative statement about how they need 15000 users willing to pay for an IPS option (and confirming their will with a prepay) i'd say that interest in IPS option was constantly fading away, until the number of purchases of some particular model with some particular IPS screen fallen below 15000 (and by the way there is still an IPS screen in their X200/X201 tablets).
ThinkPads with IPS have to compete with ThinkPads with TN and with other laptops. It seems that their competition with Thinkpads with TN was lost, with number of people willing to pay an extra for IPS screen lower than that critical 15000 point. And if lenovo closed the competition by removing not IPS option but TN option, Thinkpads would become a bit more expensive on average, thus weakening their position in competition with other laptops.
iPad, however, had nothing to compete with on the release date, nor it has anything to compete with now (well, galaxy tab is not actually a competitor). The same thing (although of the lower scale) is with Kno. So they're able to remove a TN option, and it will not harm their sales.
Also, iPad and Kno are the tablets, and viewing angles are more critical for tablets than they are for laptops, so the percentage of people willing to pay an extra to get IPS screen in their tablet over a TN will be higher, than that for laptops. You can also check that the only ThinkPad tablet currently on market is equipped with IPS or *VA; so if we will compare apples to apples (tablets to tablets) - there is no TN in iPad, Kno and X201 tablet.

[Puppy]

ThinkPads with IPS have to compete with ThinkPads with TN and with other laptops.

No, this is the basic mistake. Similar to lets say the Eizo CG232 monitor priced around 11500 EUR does not have to compete office monitors around 200 EUR. Top ThinkPad T and X models are (were) expected to be reasonably expensive offering unique features on the martket. Since Lenovo has given up on providing top quality ThinkPad models and destroyed the brand name, HP is probably the only company now willing to revert back the notebook market offering serious products again. The price of e-IPS panels is nearly similar to TN ones these days so the price of top quality ThinkPad would not have to be doubled just to have decent display. Sad.

Just hope that future technologies (probably OLED) does not allow to produce such visually crappy display component even in the lowest cost segment (where all current ThinkPad models belongs by its display quality).

[dr_st]

HP is probably the only company now willing to revert back the notebook market offering serious products again. The price of e-IPS panels is nearly similar to TN ones these days so the price of top quality ThinkPad would not have to be doubled just to have decent display. Sad.

Why? Because HP offers an IPS panel in its ultra-expensive, huge and heavy workstation? IMO, offering the option in such an obvious niche product (not interesting to 99% of the laptop users out there) is almost like not offering it at all.

And did you see the extra they charge just on that IPS panel? (About $600 if I am not mistaken). I guess however small the difference between TN and eIPS are, they still have not reach the economy of laptop LCDs.

[penartur]

No, this is the basic mistake.

Why is this a mistake?
There is, let's say, two options of LCD screens for T510: TN (basic) and IPS ($100 more). If someone needs a laptop, they won't purchase both flavors of T510, they will purchase only one. They will choose whether they could live with TN or they want to pay $100 more for IPS.
Isn't that a competition between TN and IPS?
And what should lenovo do if suddenly they understand, that only 100 customers choose to pay that extra, and minimal amount of screens lenovo could order from LCD manufacturers is 15000? Should they purchase 15000 IPS screens if they will sell only 100 laptops equipped with IPS?

[lophiomys]

...
And what should lenovo do if suddenly they understand, that only 100 customers choose to pay that extra, and minimal amount of screens lenovo could order from LCD manufacturers is 15000? Should they purchase 15000 IPS screens if they will sell only 100 laptops equipped with IPS?

I consider this an over-extreme example.

The W700 whopper for shure does not sell in big numbers. I've never seen one in any of the CAD/engineering/PR offices I visited.
But it's possilbe for Lenovo to bring a W700 monster to market!

Second, I personally, as a paying customer, I do not have pity on Lenovo taking some entrepreneurial risk. Thats their ultimate job.

Third, as so many forum members are asking for better screens and useful form factors for day to day work, 15.000 units is a small number
in a globalised market. Just think of all the managers in the billion-people country China, who'd buy just for reprentative reasons.
There is definetly a market.

Let's estimate:
15.000 S-IPS LCDs at a unit price of 100$ net in whole sale. That would make 1.5Mio$. Is this big money for a multi national corporation
like Lenovo?

Forth, Lenovo would regain a lot of good reputation, by providing brilliant workhorse laptops again. That's even more value for marketing.
What do you get for 1.5Mio in terms of a PR action? Next to nothing.

----

Edit: corr. wording

[penartur]

The W700 whopper for shure does not sell in big numbers. I've never seen one in any of the CAD/engineering/PR offices I visited.
But it's possilbe for Lenovo to bring a W700 monster to market!

It seems that there will not be W700 refresh. Lenovo tried to introduce that monster and failed.

Second, I personally, as a paying customer, I do not have pity on Lenovo taking some entrepreneurial risk. Thats their ultimate job.

Their ultimate job is making money, not taking risk.
And what risk are you talking about? They offered an IPS option once, and then they removed that option. Based on that statement about 15000 pre-orders, i'd say there wasn't enough demand on this option.
I'll try to say it again: imagine that you are a laptop manufacturer, you ordered 15000 of IPS 4:3 screens and offered these as an option in your 4:3 laptops; but in a year you sold as low as 100 laptops equipped with such a screen, so that dust is covering remaining 14900 screens in your warehouse, and you lost nearly all the money paid for that screens to LCD manufacturers. Now, as the industry moves from 4:3 to 16:10, your next laptop generation has to be 16:10. Will you order another 15000 of IPS 16:10 screens? I don't see why are you calling this a risk. It is not a risk, there is no chance large amount of people will pay more for an IPS screen, you already saw that on 4:3 generation.
All this is purely my speculation, but what if this speculation is close to the truth?

Third, as so many forum members are asking for better screens and useful form factors for day to day work, 15.000 units is a small number in a globalised market.

Form factors are completely different story, it was discussed many times before in other threads. Basically, to offer an IPS option in an existing model you only should order some stock (15000) of IPS screens, and to offer a 4:3 laptop, you should design a new model and order a lots (millions) of 4:3 screens from LCD manufacturers, and it is more than lenovo sells in a year, so even if all thinkpads will be 4:3 and no people will look to other brand because they're looking for widescreen, lenovo will still have a huge loss.
And i saw tens, maybe even hundred of forum members here and on lenovoblogs.com asking for better screens. Okay, let's say only one of ten men wishing an IPS screen is writing on thinkpads.com or lenovoblogs.com, and we will still get only one thousand of potential IPS customers.
15000 may look small in a globalised market, but lenovo sells only couple of millions of some particular model (e.g. T510), and this means that about 1% of all T510 sold should be equipped with an IPS screen, and it is quite probably that less than 1% of T510 consumers are willing to pay that extra.

Just think of all the managers in the billion-people country China, who'd buy just for reprentative reasons.

There is maybe 1 million of managers in China who are purchasing thinkpad in any given year (based on information that since 1992 lenovo sold 60 millions of thinkpads). It means that there is only 100.000 of managers who are purchasing any given thinkpad model in any given year. And they're paying an extra to get a Thinkpad over some Latitude for that representative reasons, but there is no representative reason to make them pay an extra for an IPS screen or for more RAM or for faster CPU etc.

Let's estimate:
15.000 S-IPS LCDs at a unit price of 100$ net in whole sale. That would make 1.5Mio$. Is this big money for a multi national corporation like Lenovo?

This is not a big money for lenovo, but that does not mean they're willing to give away that money. Lenovo primary target is to make profits, not loss; and only because they're making profits, $1.5mln is not a big money for them.

Forth, Lenovo would regain a lot of good reputation, by providing brilliant workhorse laptops again. That's even more value for marketing.
What do you get for 1.5Mio in terms of a PR action? Next to nothing.

So you've taken some PR action that costs $1.5mln, calculated the gain from that PR action, calculated the gain from an action of purchasing 15000 of IPS screens and offering such an option in T510, and the former is lower than latter? That's great that you're able to tell such things just watching from outside. I guess you should now write some business plan about such a way spending $1.5mln to improve lenovo's image; i'm sure they will offer you a position of chief marketeer. That's of course if you actually have some calculations, not merely theoretical speculations about "wow, the impact of introducing such an option would be huge".

[Puppy]

Forth, Lenovo would regain a lot of good reputation, by providing brilliant workhorse laptops again. That's even more value for marketing.
What do you get for 1.5Mio in terms of a PR action? Next to nothing.

According this article http://www.techspot.com/news/39806-idc- ... sales.html, Lenovo shipped 4,84 million laptop units in the second quater of 2010. Now lets calculate what impact would have had to not sold a single unit of the 15000 units with acceptable display Probably it would have been still better result than (current) losing customer's faith and trust in the ThinkPad brand name.

[penartur]

According this article http://www.techspot.com/news/39806-idc- ... sales.html, Lenovo shipped 4,84 million laptop units in the second quater of 2010.

Including Value Line and IdeaPads. And i believe sales of IdeaPads and Value Line is several times larger than that of ThinkPads.

Now lets calculate what impact would have had to not sold a single unit of the 15000 units with acceptable display

I believe Lenovo already did the calculations, and this is why they don't offer an IPS option.

Probably it would have been still better result than (current) losing customer's faith and trust in the ThinkPad brand name.

The key word is "probably". Probably it would have been much worse. Probably it would not help to regain any faith because people out there would still say "lenovo sucks, they're offering IPS screens now, but still don't offer 4:3". Or probably it would met an outstanding success in the audience of people who want IPS screens... about 100 people or so.
If you have any firm calculations on this matter instead of pure speculations and "probably", i suggest you to write that calculations there and then give it to lenovo.

[andre#4]

There are 2 things at work here. They are described below. But besides any of that. They just don't want to do it. They could very easily buy ips 15,000 lcd panels, even in the 4:3 format if they wanted to, and they could easily sell every computer with them too. And at a profit. Don't buy into this thing about demand not being high enough. Demand is created by the corporations via Madison avenue advertising. If I told you 30 years ago that trucks would replace 2 door coupes as commuter vehicles, and single people would be driving 9 passenger 4 wheel drive 6000 lb trucks to work everyday getting 10 miles per gallon, with gas costing $125.00 per tank, you would say I was crazy. But, the car companies decided to market trucks as sportscars, because they could be produced for 1/4 the cost. They made a new name Sport Utility Vehicle, and used madison avenue to convince people trucks were cool. These trucks are not needed at all. The SUV passenger seats are empty 90% of the time and 99% of the truck beds are always empty. Before this advertising push, the only people who drove trucks to work were blue collar workers and farmers. Trucks were the cheapest vehicles available, and the least desired for commuting to work. Now they are the most expensive, and most desired. Advertising can get people to buy anything. Even something that is free, like water. No one paid for bottled water before madison avenue and the TV convinced them it was the thing to do. Or something pointless and worthless, like pokeman cards.

All LEnovo would have to do is advertise the "NEW" screens as the best thing since sliced bread. Make a new name, and make up a phony reason why we need them. (or real reasons) Since the internet scrolls vertically, the taller screen could be marketed as an "Super Ultra Mega Tall Scroll-less Internet Screen Plus" You get the idea.

Now the 2 reasons




#1 The new corporate mentality.

Every little tiny aspect of the company has to show profit. There is no more taking losses on some items to cause increased sales in other areas (which more than makes up for the original loss, by the way...in some times pays for the loss 50 times over). They've got bean counters in charge of engineering decisions too. If an engineer says that a certain metal is called for in a design, the bean counter finds out that plastic is cheaper, and overrides the decision of the engineer. No matter that it is inadequate. We might as well make bad products because that is what everyone else is doing. No matter if people die from fires or wrecks. At least we can save $0.003 per unit. The recall and ensuing wrongful death payoffs will be cheaper than building them all from metal.

***Even in the most important thing in this world, which is HUMAN LIFE, we have the same problem. Bean counters are in charge of medical decisions. Doctors and surgeons are being overridden by third party beancounters from the insurance company. My aunt went to the hospital, and had a cancerous tumor. The doctor prescribes immediate surgery to remove the tumor. Does he remove it? No. He calls the insurance company, who asks their accountant if there is a cheaper thing that could be done. The accountant suggests that drugs are cheaper than surgery, and the surgery will not be authorized. Drugs are given. Cancer gets worse. Aunt goes back. Now cancer is all through body. Doctor again prescribes removal of tumor. Now insurance says, ok remove it. But now it is too late. And the insurance had paid for drugs, surgery, and lots more drugs, since the patient is now dying. Then there is the hassle of the funeral, the casket, all the extra hospital visits, the estate dispersal, the lawyers, the depression my uncle, his treatment, and lots more problems. Of course all these things enrich the corporations more. Since every item makes a profit.


Car companies used to make "Halo" cars, which were cars that they sold in small numbers, usually every one at a loss. This gave tremendous press to the company, and got millions of people into the dealerships. Those customers could then be persuaded to buy whatever cheap garbage the corporation was churning out, and it usually worked.


#2...The general cheapening and degradation of everything.

Why provide good things if the stupid drones will just buy whatever we make? For each person on this forum that cares about these computers, there are 10's of millions of stupid brainwashed consumers that will buy anything. And since all the companies are doing the same thing, there is no fear of competition. It is all garbage, everywhere you look. Even Hasselblad cameras, which were made in Sweden for 60 years until 2007, are not made any more at all. Hasselblad simply puts their name on a generic Fuji camera and charges the premium price. For 60 years, they used Carl Zeiss lenses, the best in the world, made in Germany. But now, generic fuji lenses.

The few high quality things that are still available new are so expensive, that they are only available to the ruling class. Brands like Raytheon, Lockheed, Feadship, Grumman. These things are generally up to the quality standards of the 1940's. I.E. Bulletproof.

In the old days, quality items were available to the middle class and to the rich working class. My father bought a 30 year old Packard car 40 years ago, and that car has yet to break down once. In 40 years it has never needed so much as a tune up. The oil was changed twice in 40 years. It is black. That car was made so strong that the frame is constructed of steel "I" beams. The tires are 40 years old too. With 40 year old tubes in them. That is a testament to quality. The only sign of age is the canvas top, which is hard and brittle. It starts up faster than a new car and runs silently and smoothly after 73 years of age and 40 years of no maintenance. Every single feature of the car works as designed. It even has a radiator grille the louvers of which open and close depending on temperature.

[dr_st]

Penartur,

While you are right that the ultimate goal of a business is to make profit, and not taking risks, one cannot deny that taking entrepreneurial risks now and then is a natural part of running a profit business, as in the long run it has the potential of increasing profit by opening previously closed markets. As a Russian, you should be sufficiently familiar with the saying "He who does not take risks, does not get to drink champagne."

As far as numbers go, I feel that the magical 15,000 number that's being thrown around here, has been taken the wrong way (maybe because it was coined improperly in the original blog). But Matt did not say "we need 15,000 orders to make it worthwhile", or "we need 15,000 because the LCD manufacturers will only sell us in batches of 15,000". He said "we'd need well over 15,000 confirmed orders to make it even worth considering". Which means that the actual numbers are probably far greater. I do not have the numbers, but I am sure Lenovo sold much more than 15,000 IPS-equipped Thinkpads of every single model that has offered IPS in the past.

I can definitely understand Lenovo's position on the subject - they opted for the easy approach - to align their offerings to those of every other manufacturer on the market and "play safe". I can understand them, but I cannot help but share the sadness of many members of the forum about the loss of the innovation edge that Lenovo/IBM used to have in the laptop LCD market. Being just like everyone else is a double-edge sword, and it's a pity that current Lenovo management does not seem to have the guts needed to go against the flow on some aspects.

Whatever the price difference between IPS and non-IPS Thinkpads in the past was, and however small the percentage of people who could justify the extra expense, I seriously doubt that Lenovo got stuck with unsold units in its warehouses. If they did - they should throw some of those leftover T60/p IPS machines onto the market now as "New Old Stock". It only takes a casual reading of this message board to imagine the overwhelming demand they would have.

While I was composing this post, Andre made one of his own. Both of his points are interesting and have merit. I will specifically focus on #2 - cheapening and degradation of products. Back in the days where the starting price for a Thinkpad was $2000, an extra $200 or even $400 for a "top-of-the-line" unit with IPS seemed reasonable to many. Try to convince people who think $800 is too much for a new Thinkpad nowadays that an extra 50% just for a screen with wide viewing angles is a smart consumer decision. This reality helps perhaps justify Lenovo's "cowardly" marketing strategy.

[lophiomys]

...
I'll try to say it again: imagine that you are a laptop manufacturer, you ordered 15000 of IPS 4:3 screens and offered these as an option in your 4:3 laptops; but in a year you sold as low as 100 laptops equipped with such a screen
...

No, I'm a customer and therefore I do want to imagine better features inside the Thinkpads, for which I pay good money.
Why do you insist that Thinkpads with brilliant screens would sell only in the hundreds. The public survey done
in the Lenovo forum indicates otherwise.

Penartur,
I've recently met another poster in the German Thinkpad Forum, also bringing forward similar arguments,
which emphasize to see the world with the eyes of the (poor) Lenovo management. That's a change in point of
view, which I'm not willing to take. It includes between the lines, that customers should cut back on their
expectations of the product in order to help the multinational company to gain even more profit.
Penartur, what are your motives to do so? You are hinting that you know, or believe, something about the
decision process and/or the real internal numbers of the Lenovo management? Can you let us know more?
- - - -

The whole story reminds me of a UK chocolate bar manufacturer, who was slowly thinning out their chocolate bars,
until a critical level in the cristallisation process of the chocolate was reached, which changed the customer
experience significantly. Practically over night a competitor was taking over a large part of their market share.

IMO this critical level is reached now with the 16:9 form factor, beside other mishaps. It be can observed now,
that Thinkpad customers, who were willing to accept 16:10 wide screens, strictly objecting the new 16:9 models.
That's a strong indicator.

[penartur]

No, I'm a customer and therefore I do want to imagine better features inside the Thinkpads, for which I pay good money.

You're paying not good enough. I guess that even only 100 of you wanted to purchase IPS-equipped thinkpad for $10000, that would not be a problem.
Recklessly accusing lenovo will not improve the situation. And you not wanting to understand lenovo's motives are only making it worse.

Why do you insist that Thinkpads with brilliant screens would sell only in the hundreds.

Because of the fact lenovo sold Thinkpads with brilliant screens once, but then removed that option.

The public survey done in the Lenovo forum indicates otherwise.

What, is there some survey in the Lenovo forum with 15000 voting for an IPS option? Why don't they join and make a preorder on such an option?

I've recently met another poster in the German Thinkpad Forum, also bringing forward similar arguments, which emphasize to see the world with the eyes of the (poor) Lenovo management. That's a change in point of view, which I'm not willing to take. It includes between the lines, that customers should cut back on their expectations of the product in order to help the multinational company to gain even more profit.

It seems that you're only recklessly accusing lenovo and saying "silly lenovo, i know better, you should offer an IPS option and it wil sell fast and will greatly improve your image". I'm trying to say you that maybe it will be sold only in numbers like a hundred in a year and not improve lenovo's image at all because the same people will then want 4:3, which is impossible.

Penartur, what are your motives to do so? You are hinting that you know, or believe, something about the decision process and/or the real internal numbers of the Lenovo management? Can you let us know more?

What i know is the open information:
1) There once was an IPS option on thinkpads. Lenovo ordered a batch of IPS screens and offered such an option.
2) However, with 4:3 -> 16:10 transition, lenovo stopped offering such an option. I can conclude that such an option did not sell well and maybe there was a huge pile of 4:3 IPS screens left nobody wanted to purchase, so there was no point in ordering another batch of IPS 16:10 screens.
3) From that statement about 15000, i may conclude that less than 15000 of thinkpads equipped with any specific IPS screen was sold. And it seems that the minimal order of some specific screen is 15000.
4) We all know lenovo orders 12.1" IPS screens for their X201 tablet, but doesn't offer these as an option for their X201. Probably that's where you should start your arguing with lenovo, because i doubt that lenovo's 15000 argument is applicable to such a situation: they already have that screens, they should only spend some effort on introducing such an option on their website and in their warehouse. I believe that maybe even a hundred of signatures would be enough for them to introduce such an option.

The whole story reminds me of a UK chocolate bar manufacturer, who was slowly thinning out their chocolate bars, until a critical level in the cristallisation process of the chocolate was reached, which changed the customer experience significantly. Practically over night a competitor was taking over a large part of their market share.
IMO this critical level is reached now with the 16:9 form factor, beside other mishaps. It be can observed now, that Thinkpad customers, who were willing to accept 16:10 wide screens, strictly objecting the new 16:9 models.

And who will take over large part of their marketshare over night? Does Dell produce 4:3 laptops? Or toshiba? Or Fujitsu? Or maybe HP?
And now the same thing will happen with 16:10.
You see, it seems that you only may get some non-standart AR (like 4:3 now or 16:10 in a couple of years) when ordering tens of millions of a single model of such a screen (apple purchased 65 millions screens of a single model for their ipad). Lenovo doesn't produce such an enormous amount of laptops at all, and not all lenovo laptops are thinkpads, and not all thinkpads are of the same screen size/resolution.

[penartur]

While you are right that the ultimate goal of a business is to make profit, and not taking risks, one cannot deny that taking entrepreneurial risks now and then is a natural part of running a profit business, as in the long run it has the potential of increasing profit by opening previously closed markets. As a Russian, you should be sufficiently familiar with the saying "He who does not take risks, does not get to drink champagne."

They took that risk back in 4:3 days, by ordering batch of 4:3 IPS screens and offering them as an option. It seems that results were too bad for them to order another batch of 16:10 IPS screens. If they did, that would not be a risk but rather just throwing some money away.
He who took a risk and failed, will not be able drink champagne. And if he will took the same risk again, he will fail again and will not be able even to eat some bread.

[Growly]

Oh Lenovo, you make me sad

[dr_st]

They took that risk back in 4:3 days, by ordering batch of 4:3 IPS screens and offering them as an option. It seems that results were too bad for them to order another batch of 16:10 IPS screens. If they did, that would not be a risk but rather just throwing some money away.

I believe you assume w-a-y too much here. From the fact that IPS screens were offered on 4:3 models, but not after subsequent 8:5 transition, you deduce that it must be because they did not sell well.

That's a flawed derivation. Unless you have actual data showing (or at least some testimony from Lenovo) that computers with these screens did not sell well, you have no basis to draw conclusions as to why the option was discontinued.

[lophiomys]

They took that risk back in 4:3 days, by ordering batch of 4:3 IPS screens and offering them as an option. It seems that results were too bad for them to order another batch of 16:10 IPS screens. If they did, that would not be a risk but rather just throwing some money away.
...

They threw away a lot of money by getting a lot of negative press, and losing an enthusiastic customer group,
who were also able to pay for premium products.

[bill bolton]

All LEnovo would have to do is....

In product marketing, that is called a "and the magic happens here" solution.

The real world isn't like that.

Car companies used to make "Halo" cars, which were cars that they sold in small numbers, usually every one at a loss. This gave tremendous press to the company, and got millions of people into the dealerships. Those customers could then be persuaded to buy whatever cheap garbage the corporation was churning out, and it usually worked.

With used to to being the operative concept. The world has changed significantly and it doesn't "usually work" any longer.

For each person on this forum that cares about these computers, there are 10's of millions of stupid brainwashed consumers that will buy anything.

Alternatively, there are "10s of millions" of savvy consumers who will not pay for functionality they don't want or need.

That is a testament to quality.

It seems to me to be nothing but a testament to hyperbole.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[bill bolton]

They threw away a lot of money by getting a lot of negative press, and losing an enthusiastic customer group, who were also able to pay for premium products.

There's the unbounded "a lot" quantity again appearing in a justification. Unless you know what it enumerates to, its actually valueless.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[pianowizard]

That's a flawed derivation. Unless you have actual data showing (or at least some testimony from Lenovo) that computers with these screens did not sell well, you have no basis to draw conclusions as to why the option was discontinued.

Remember those Lenovo blogs that were discussed a great deal on this forum several years ago? On those blogs, Lenovo claimed that the reason they couldn't continue to sell T60's and T60p's with IPS was that the LCD makers couldn't keep up with the high demand for these panels. If that claim was truthful, then we can conclude that "IPS screens sold poorly" was NOT the reason Lenovo discontinued them.

[bill bolton]

On those blogs, Lenovo claimed that the reason they couldn't continue to sell T60's and T60p's with IPS was that the LCD makers couldn't keep up with the high demand for these panels.

I don't recall the word high being used in conjunction with demand.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[anthean]

Has anyone noticed that many 16:9 notebooks are now shown in ads from a viewing angle that tends to obscure how wide and squat they are ?

Just a few examples of notebooks viewed from the corner:

Samsung: http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/laptops

Toshiba: http://us.toshiba.com/computers/laptops/portege/R700

Sony (a mix): http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/sto ... verviewTab

Now, if wideness was the virtue that it is presented as, wouldn't it make more sense to show the machines head-on ? Yeah, I know this is only aesthetics, and does not refer to usability (which we have argued back and forth elsewhere). But I suspect that some notebook manufacturers are back-handedly admitting that screens have gotten too wide and squat.

(Note that I am not accusing Lenovo, Dell, or HP of doing this--clearly, they get points for honesty.)

[ThinkRob]

No matter if people die from fires or wrecks. At least we can save $0.003 per unit. The recall and ensuing wrongful death payoffs will be cheaper than building them all from metal.

Yes, I saw Fight Club too.

In the old days, quality items were available to the middle class and to the rich working class. My father bought a 30 year old Packard car 40 years ago, and that car has yet to break down once. In 40 years it has never needed so much as a tune up. The oil was changed twice in 40 years. It is black. That car was made so strong that the frame is constructed of steel "I" beams. The tires are 40 years old too. With 40 year old tubes in them. That is a testament to quality. The only sign of age is the canvas top, which is hard and brittle. It starts up faster than a new car and runs silently and smoothly after 73 years of age and 40 years of no maintenance. Every single feature of the car works as designed. It even has a radiator grille the louvers of which open and close depending on temperature.

Besides the fact that this anecdote is more or less meaningless without knowing how much the car was used, how it was stored, etc. there's also a few other factors to consider:

1) That car is almost certainly more lethal in a wreck than a modern vehicle. I've seen a number of older, "quality" cars. They have wildly unsafe features like steel dashboards, non-tempered glass, and a lack of crumple zones that generally result in split heads, crippling removal of limbs, and large flying shards of glass.

2) How much did it cost at the time? And adjusted for inflation? I'd be very surprised if it were cheaper than a modern equivalent. Like it or not, the main focus of modern automobile buyers is price. There's no sense paying huge amounts more for a car which you only intend to keep for a decade or so.

3) What sort of gas mileage does it get? How does it handle unleaded fuel? The climate (pardon the pun) of the automotive industry is wildly different now, and the increased importance of expenditure in some areas (such as making more efficient engines or working to cut emissions) has necessitated cuts in others (assuming, of course, that you want the car to remain as affordable...)

This has been discussed here over and over to death. The reason is simple. Apple and Kno companies wants (are willing) to deliver top quality products to their customers. They are not trying to find silly excuses why it is not possible and blah blah. Lenovo does not want. The difference is to try to find solutions instead of excuses.

Apple doesn't use IPS panels in their laptops. The use TN panels, the same as almost everybody else.

Having disassembled a bunch of their 2006-2010 machines, I actually know *exactly* who makes the panels in many of the MacBooks. The ones I've taken apart have almost exclusively used panels by AU Optronics and Chi Mei -- the same two manufacturers that Lenovo uses for many of their laptop's panels.

Some of the MacBooks have had quite poor panels, BTW: the 2006-2008 MacBooks used a couple batches of Chi Mei panels that exhibited atrocious dithering artifacts. In an amusing twist, this was loudly bemoaned on various Apple forums, with the general sentiment being "Apple's cheapening the brand -- they just care about flashy iPhone stuff now, and they don't build quality computers like they used to!"

[penartur]

Apple doesn't use IPS panels in their laptops. The use TN panels, the same as almost everybody else.

I believe he was saying about iPads, which are based on IPS.
However, it is pointless to compare iPads (apple purchased 65 millions of a single screen model for ipad for 2011) to thinkpads (since 1992, lenovo only sold 60 millions of various thinkpad models with various screen models (in the current thinkpads there is about ten or so different LCD sizes/resolutions))

[ThinkRob]

I believe he was saying about iPads, which are based on IPS.
However, it is pointless to compare iPads (apple purchased 65 millions of a single screen model for ipad for 2011) to thinkpads (since 1992, lenovo only sold 60 millions of various thinkpad models with various screen models (in the current thinkpads there is about ten or so different LCD sizes/resolutions))

Ah. That certainly makes sense. And yes, I think that scale has something to do with it -- I don't doubt that any manufacturer placing an order for 60+ million units per year could get some *very* high quality parts at a very reasonable cost... but that assumes they have the volume to place such an order (which Lenovo and many others clearly don't.)

[penartur]

Ah. That certainly makes sense. And yes, I think that scale has something to do with it -- I don't doubt that any manufacturer placing an order for 60+ million units per year could get some *very* high quality parts at a very reasonable cost... but that assumes they have the volume to place such an order (which Lenovo and many others clearly don't.)

Even more, price of 65 millions of screens is just couple of times less than lenovo's annually revenue (considering that lenovo makes not only ThinkPads, but IdeaPads, ThinkCentre, ThinkStation, ThinkServer, IdeaCentre, Value Line, ThinkVision, phones etc as well).

[lophiomys]

The reverse conclusion of the last two posts would be:
a) Thinkpads would be small batch production.
(compared to magic Apple orders; strange how iSteve could have achieved this? SCNR).
b) Because of small batch production qualtity could not be paid for.

[penartur]

a) Thinkpads would be small batch production.
(compared to magic Apple orders; strange how iSteve could have achieved this? SCNR).

Thinkpads are small batch production, when compared to iPads.
http://tommytoy.typepad.com/tommy-toy-p ... sales.html : according to that page, total PC shipments (laptops and desktops combined) were 88 millions in Q3 2010, and lenovo market share was 10%; lenovo sold 9.1 millions of thinkpads, ideapads, value line laptops, thinkcentres, ideacentres and thinkstations in Q3 2010.
There are some links on the internet saying that apple currently dominates tablet PC market, with a roughly 95% market share.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html : according to that page, total apple PC shipments (laptops and desktops combined) were 3.9 millions in Q4 2010 (apple's Q4 is about the same as calendar Q3), ipad shipments were 4.2 millions and iphones shipments were 14.1 millions.
http://www.cellphonedigest.net/news/201 ... ile_ph.php : According to that page, total mobile phones (plain phones and smartphones combined) shipments were 340 millions in Q3 2010, and apple market share was about 4%
That means that in Q3 2010:
1) While lenovo PC market share is 10%, apple PC market share is 4.5%.
2) Tablets market is about 20 times smaller than PC market. Lenovo tablets share is 0%, apple tablets share is 95%.
3) Mobile phones market is about 4 times larger than PC market. Lenovo phones share is 0%, apple phones share is 4%.
3) Apple sold less PCs than iPads, and iphone sales are 3.5x higher.
4) iPad sales are comparable to that of ThinkPads (given that ipad sales are 46% of the entire lenovo PC sales). All that for a single ipad model with a single screen model (there are about 10 thinkpad models in current generation, with about 5 different screen sizes and about 10 different resolutions). So even now apple uses about 10x more screens of a single 10" XGA IPS model than lenovo does of any particular screen model. Also, tablets market is expected to drastically rise in the following year, so the ratio will further increase.
5) iPhone sales are 3-4x higher than that of ThinkPads, and 1.5x higher than that of lenovo PCs (desktops and laptops combined). So now apple uses about 30-40x more screens of a single 3" 960*480 IPS model than lenovo does of any particular screen model (and about 1.5x more screens than lenovo does of all screen models combined).

Bottomline.
Yes, lenovo does have quite high market share on a laptops market, much higher than apple has. However, we are not talking about macbooks, so:
In one case, despite apple plays on a rather tiny market (which is expected to grow), it dominates that market, so the apple shipments on that market are larger than thinkpad shipments. In other case, despite apple's market share is a rather low, the market itself is huge, so the apple shipments on that market are several times larger than thinkpad shipments. And on both markets apple sells only a single model, with a single screen model, while thinkpads are sold in various flavors with a ten different screens.
This is not lenovo fault. To order such a huge screen batches, they need either to dominate some small market or to have some noticeable presence on some huge market or to have reasonable marketshare on a laptops market; and sell there a single model - that's when they will be able to offer such a custom screen in that model. Do you imagine lenovo offering a single thinkpad model with a single screen model; e.g. there is only 15" 2048x1536 IPS thinkpad, and nobody cares of those who want widescreen or portable or workstation or lower resolution? Wouldn't lenovo lost all their market share by doing such a move?