[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1346334317' post='4974806']though remember there's likely to be plenty of other ultra portable hybrids from other companies too (Asus recently announced the Tablet 810, and of course the MS Surface Pro)

Which I just googled (not having heard of it before), and which looks 100% identical to this one except for the brand name. It comes with a stylus too, as it happens, and from a quick glance it has identical technical stats as well. It even has the same color, and the keyboard looks 100% identical, too
[/quote]Well yes, although this is pretty common already - there are only so many ways to make a hybrid, and I imagine a lot are going to go the route of a detachable keyboard, like the Asus Transformer. When there's only one company making the CPU/GPU, that also somewhat limits the specs. SSDs allow less variation in size compared to traditional hard disks (so 32GB is too small, 128GB is too expensive for an Atom based device). All coming with Wacom pens is like saying all desktops have mice and keyboards Most laptop keyboards look similar, especially when you're making one that's ultra thin (which I think is a shame, as I find those kind of keyboards hard to type on - I wouldn't mind a better keyboard, even if it meant the device being slightly thicker; I love the keyboard on my Samsung netbook for example). And all desktop PCs are pretty much black (though I hope silver doesn't become the standard for laptops - I think it looks tacky, like a 1970s attempt to look futuristic).

Although I agree it would be sad if they all became completely identical - that's what happened with netbooks already, all of them having 1024x600, all having 10" screens, all having 1GB (despite all upgradeable to 2GB), none of them having SSDs after a while. I suspect that 2GB/64GB SSD/1366x768 11.5" will become the new standard for the Atom-based hybrids, with better specs being left to the more expensive i5 devices. The Surface Pro stands out as being different (built in stand, keyboard attaches as the case, and smaller size at 10.5", with choice of SSD sizes - and not silver, too!) but will only be available with an i5.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1346336941' post='4974816']
Wacom m pens is like saying all desktops have mice and keyboards

NOT TRUE. A lot of tablets come with nTrig digitizers, or manufacturer digitizers, which have significantly less quality than wacom digitizers. It's not major if you're just taking notes, but for artists it makes a significant difference. The gap is closing, but not all digitizers/drivers are created equal.[/quote]Fair enough. Well okay then, them all coming with pens is like all laptops having keyboards (though Samsung and Asus both refer to Wacom).

why is the screen so shiny?
16:9 = fail, is portrait mode even possible?
why are they so expensive?

Why is 16:9 a fail? What would you rather? (16:9 is increasingly common, from smartphones to 17" laptops, and is the ratio of standard resolutions like 720p HD and Full 1080p HD. Yes, I wish things weren't so wide on computers, but that's the way things have gone, nothing to do with these specific models.)

I don't know off hand if Windows 8 does portrait mode, though I don't see why that's connected to the ratio? My Samsung Galaxy Nexus is 16:9, and happily does portrait or landscape in Android.

They're shiny as they're evidently glossy, rather than matte. Hopefully some manufacturers will continue to offer matte (my Samsung netbook is matte). (I do find it a bit odd though why glossy is so common on tablets/smartphones, when they're often used outdoors - are there any matte smartphones or tablets?)

It's not clear to me that they're expensive for the specs and the portability. For the i5 model, high end ultra-portables cost in that range AFAIK, so getting a hybrid on top of that seems good value. The Atom costs a bit more than netbooks, but not unreasonable given the extra touchscreen and tablet hybrid functionality. Are there existing models that offer the same, at a lower price? I guess looking at the Asus Transformer is an obvious comparison for the Atom models, what price did that originally set at in dollars?

Though I really hate tablets and the entire "must be mobile" movement, these (both ASUS and Samsung) look quite nice, I have to admit. If only they'd give me a screen that was a bit more reasonable (like... WSXGA+ or UXGA and 2'' to 3'' bigger) then I'd probably immediately buy one.

They could spare the flipping webcams for a bigger screen (or for bigger RAM) if you asked me, but of course posting images on Facebook is the most important thing to do with a computer nowadays.

Still, at least these toys have a real keyboard, that looks promising.

If you don't want tablets, and you want a larger screen, don't we already have such things - namely laptops? Or do you mean you'd buy one if it was larger, and still had a touchscreen?

The one shown above has 1920x1080, higher than the resolutions you ask for. I'm not sure why it has to be either/or between a webcam and screen size/RAM - you can get laptops with larger screens and more RAM (and still have a webcam). I don't think they're saying a camera is the most important thing, just that it's a standard feature in almost all laptops these days. I agree about being good to have keyboards!

4:3 is better for most things

N.B. 4:3 has been dead for almost a decade. The standard non-widescreen LCD aspect is actually 5:4.

Also, widescreen monitors are much cheaper to purchase wholesale than non-widescreen ones -- the latter are now an expensive speciality component (furthermore, 16:9 is now cheaper than 16:10 for the same reasons).
When I worked at a manufacturing company, to reduce costs when producing non-widescreen devices (modern versions of older CRT-based machines), we would use widescreen LCDs, but just cover the sides up so that only a 4:3 portion of it was visible (our devices were large enough to accommodate this wasted space).

As usual, Apple is a hipster bringing back a dead trend
Until the iPad decided to bring back 4:3, it was truly dead.

yes manufacturers dont like the fullscreen ratio 4:3 since thy cost more to make as a 10" 4:3 is quite a bit bigger

The price isn't about size - it's about demand and mass production. 5:4 LCDs became cheaper than 4:3 CRTs because everyone wanted a thin, flatscreen TV/monitor, so mass production of 5:4's exploded while production of 4:3's shrank. It's almost impossible to even find a CRT manufacturer any more.
Larger widescreens then became cheaper than smaller 5:4's because of demand for widescreen devices. Production batch sizes for 5:4's then shrunk as equipment was dedicated to the more popular widescreen formats, which made those smaller-batch, speciality items more expensive. Again, in about '08, production runs of 16:10's were hugely reduced in favour of producing the more useful (as in, can be sold to more device manufacturers) 16:9 displays, which resulted in 16:10's becoming much more expensive.

Apple doesn't source their components in the usual manner though -- they can afford to pay Foxconn to set up a new, exclusive, speciality 4:3 LCD production line from scratch.