Microsoft kills Zune, Windows Live brands; Live ID renamed to Microsoft Account - Suraj-Sun http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/24/2821128/microsoft-kills-zune-windows-live-branding-in-windows-8 <comment><USER3> Every time they rebrand or kill a technology that they rolled out with great fanfare, I become less and less likely to trust them with an investment. (This is true both for consumer stuff and for development stuff ) Product rationalization is good, but there is a real cost when they change direction.

<comment><USER4> The services are still there right? This is just a name change?

<comment><USER5> And Visual Basic? Only the name stayed after they replaced the product with .NET.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article begins with "Microsoft appears to be killing off ...", which is quite different than the title here on HN ("Microsoft kills...". The article's original title is also "How Microsoft is killing off..." - which is a bit more honest: this is speculation/analysis. It might be correct, but it's not the same as "Look, we got an official statement from MS saying these brands are now dead" - Sad to see title tweaks for sensationalism on HN, of all places :(

<comment> Suraj-Sun I would've gone for a detailed title too, like __ "How Microsoft is killing off the Zune and Windows Live brands in Windows 8; Live ID to be renamed to Microsoft Account" __ but that would be 118 characters(with spaces) well over title limit(80) at Hacker News.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Finally, they're consolidating all their incoherent branding nonsense. As a PC user I'm wasn't sure of how much more of this I could take. "Windows Live Office Live for Games for Windows Live. Lets not talk about the "Windows Update" & "Microsoft Update" or "Windows 7 Starter", "Windows 7 Home Basic", "Windows 7 Home Premium", "Windows 7 Professional", "Windows 7 Enterprise", "Windows 7 Ultimate". Office Live, Live.com, Windows Live, Games for Windows Live, Windows Live Mail.

It's like they have a whole department at Microsoft dedicated to making as many brands out of the words "Windows" and "Live". Finally, I can tell my mom to just open up "Mail", or go to the "Calendar" instead of "Outlook Express" or "Windows Live Mail". Oh I forgot, I got sick of MS's multiple personality disorder and got my family Gmail accounts.

<comment><USER8> The various versions of Windows are actually very important. I haven't heard news if they're going to be continuing multiple products in Windows 8.

Windows has a very broad reach. It's on a lot of computers, used in very different ways, and Windows 7 naming is quite easy to understand.

Windows 7 Starter is not sold in stores but rather preloaded on netbooks and low performance devices. This is how Windows 8 on ARM will be.

Windows 7 Home Basic is a version of Windows 7 that is only generally available in emerging markets. It has geographic limitations on activation. I don't think you would find it on the shelf in the US.

Windows 7 Home Premium is what the consumer sees on the shelf in the store, or on their computer from Best Buy. It's Windows for "home".

Windows 7 Professional is for professionals to use on their work computer. Businesses use it. It adds the ability to sign onto a domain, software restrictions, EFS, etc. Home Premium and Professional are the only two you should see on store shelves or preinstalled.

Windows 7 Enterprise is only available if you have an enterprise contract with Microsoft. You buy it through volume licensing.

Windows 7 Ultimate is fairly restricted in its distribution. The only way for a normal user to know about or get Ultimate is an Anytime Upgrade, for a fee. It's Windows 7 Enterprise with individual licensing.

Each serves its purpose, and they're not all easily combined in features or hardware requirements. There should be no confusion amongst the public on which Windows 7 version is meant for them unless whoever does their tech support intentionally tries to confuse them.

<comment><USER9> Why does it have to be like this? Why the distinction between Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Enterprise?

If Windows 7 Ultimate is the same thing sa Windows 7 Enterprise? Why the distinction?

Window 95 was just...windows 95. Windows XP was simply "professional" and "home".

99% of people (including work people) use their computers for checking their email, surfing the internet, using office, and playing media - this is why other companies (Google, Apple) are kicking ass and stealing MS's "home" customers.

The pervasive MS integration with everything is MS's only defense on the corporate enterprise. Their advantage in the home market is eroding. People just don't need to buy PC's any more.

<comment><USER8> > _Why does it have to be like this? Why the distinction between Windows 7 > Professional and Windows 7 Enterprise?_

Windows Enterprise is volume licensed. Windows Professional is individually licensed. Enterprise also has BitLocker and UNIX support. Again, I don't see where the confusion should lie for the user. Consumers shouldn't even be aware that Enterprise exists, or that there are differences. No consumer is ever going to even have the _chance_ to purchase Enterprise.

> _Window 95 was just...windows 95. Windows XP was simply "professional" and > "home"._

Not true. Windows 95 had a couple editions. The two consumer-facing editions were Windows 95 and Microsoft _PLUS!_ for Windows 95. There were a handful of other versions that were only sold preinstalled on computers. Fun fact, if you bought "Windows 95", you didn't get USB support. Only available in Windows 95b aka Windows 95 OSR2.1

Windows XP had a Starter edition for emerging markets. It had Media Center Edition which featured a new interface and WMC (along with DVR support). Tablet PC edition included touch screen software. There was also 64-bit edition, which may as well have been its own OS, since 64-bit support was not fully realized by all the existing software and drivers.

That fact that you didn't know these other editions existed goes to show you're blowing the whole thing out of the water for Windows 7. The point of their existence is to provide for what you are alluding to as the "other 1%" (which is actually a much, much larger percent and makes Microsoft a huge amount of money). The niche cases and the business requirements are satisfied with the niche Windows products and the business-oriented Windows products.

Apple and Google have no presence in the corporate OS world because they offer nothing to compete. "One size fits all" generally doesn't, and there's money to be made outside of that.

<comment><USER9> What's the disadvantage in giving something like Bitlocker and UNIX to regular professional users? Windows XP Starter Edition and MC edition came after their regular editions had launched. In the case of MC edition, it was launched almost a full two years later.

Market segmentation to this degree is a 1990's model of doing business. The proof is in the pudding. MS's stock hasn't moved in the past decade.

Meanwhile, Apple has taken over corporate phones. More and more phones are dumping their blackberries and moving to iPhones. Fortune 50 companies are moving their email systems to Gmail and Google Apps.

If MS wants to compete around the edges, they certainly can, but they won't be the world's largest computing presence (and they're not anymore).

MS needs to re-introduce people to their products. Why block off BitLocker? Everyone has a right to privacy! Why block off media streaming? If MS could stream easily, people woudn't be buying Roku boxes, Boxee boxes, PS3's.

This same thing happens with MS Office. What exactly is the difference between Microsoft Home and Office and Microsoft Professional (it's access and publisher - but this is a common google query!)? Why does there have to be this confusion. Why not just give Access away! If MS had simply given away SQL server licenses, Apache would have never taken off.

MS varies dramatically in caring about their whole ecosystem and stack vs. running different product lines. If MS wants to run each product as a separate entity with separate P&L statements, that's their right - but their revenue growth has slowed!

Speciation is dying. To take a different example, look at how hard it is to order a computer off of Dell.com. It's impossible now. What's the different between a "vostro" and an "optiplex"and an "inspiron" and an "xps". Why am I shown different deals if i'm a home user, a small business user, a medium size business user, or a larger business user? Why are my computing needs different if I'm a small business user vs. a medium size business user? Why is it such a struggle for me to order a machine with an SSD and 16GB RAM? It's a complete design-by-committee mess, and a complete eyesore. It's become the used car salesman of computing.

<comment><USER8> > _What's the disadvantage in giving something like Bitlocker and UNIX to > regular professional users?_

The cost. These features cost money to develop and they cost money to support. Imagine if Microsoft was getting calls from everyone who enabled BitLocker and then forgot their password. Enterprise costs a lot more than Home Premium.

> _MS's stock hasn't moved in the past decade._

That's a sign of a mature company. They rake in a lot of money. They're no longer "cool" but they're a steady source of a lot of income. And unlike Apple, they actually pay dividends on their stock. [1]

> _(and they're not anymore)_

I'd like to see some numbers on this, because every number I've seen shows Microsoft in the mid 90% range for computer install base.

> _If MS could stream easily, people woudn't be buying Roku boxes, Boxee > boxes, PS3's._

And where are people streaming _from_? Their PC, among other places. Because Vista and 7 have it built in, and XP has the feature as a download.

 _> Why not just give Access away!_

You would make a great businessman.

> _If MS had simply given away SQL server licenses, Apache would have never > taken off._

Because if there's one thing Apache servers are known for, it's SQL (wtf is this?)

> _Why am I shown different deals if i'm a home user, a small business user, a > medium size business user, or a larger business user?_

Because home users buy one computer. Businesses buy dozens or hundreds.

> _Why are my computing needs different if I'm a small business user vs. a > medium size business user?_

Business machines need to be stable, supported, and perform well for the task they do. Home computers tend to be less stable, less supported, easier to break, but above all closer to bleeding edge and cheaper.

> _Why is it such a struggle for me to order a machine with an SSD and 16GB > RAM?_

Because you can't figure out how to read? Your mouse is broken? Monitor is unplugged? I don't know, you tell me.

Listen, complain all you want, but it makes sense from a business standpoint. If you can't wrap your head what Microsoft is doing, just take a step back and realize that there are really only two options for Windows 7: Home and Professional. That's all you need to know.

And I don't want to hear you say "why do they even _make_ semi trucks?! Now I can't figure out if I need an 18-wheeler or a scooter!"

[1][https://www.microsoft.com/investor/Stock/StockSplit/default....](https://www.microsoft.com/investor/Stock/StockSplit/default.aspx)

<comment><USER9> MS's strategy hasn't produced a noticeable return on investment over the past decade. Argue with the business logic all you want, but all logic supports a theory that MS should be split up into various businesses.

The big problem at MS seems to be an unwillingness to cannibalize existing products in favor of new ones. This has led to new products only when its too late. Microsoft had a virtual insurmountable lead in phones, and it took Apple and Google creating revolutionary devices for MS to come up with a decent offering.

I own MS stock, and I have seen it pretty much stagnate. The company had tremendous potential. It is mature in its space, but its ever-looming shadow in its dominant space (windows) has prevented it from nurturing new products.

Most of it's revenue generation comes from products developed in the early 1990's. It's track record over the past 15 years for new products is terrible (with the exception of the Xbox).

<comment><USER10> If you own MS Stock then you've had dividends, quarter after quarter. That "Stagnating" stock you talk of is as much a reflection of the dividends as it is anything else.

How is it that everyone forgets that Microsoft has continued to be a massively profitable enterprise for the last 10+ years, and continues to dominate in the Desktop OS and Office Productive suite space in the same time period.

Nobody even _tries_ to challenge Microsoft in those two sectors, they are so dominant. Plus, they've seen some good traction in the Game-Console environment as well.

With all that said - I actually agree with you in principle, it would be nice if someone just said "We have two versions of Microsoft Windows, Professional and Home" - and call it a day. The seven versions result lots of angst for small IT managers visiting CDW - this thread, 2 years laters, (and freehunter's _excellent_ description) is the first time I've ever really understood the difference between all the versions. (BTW Freehunter - if you aren't already in it, you've got a great future in product management - <AUTHOR> and succinct product descriptions)

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the glowing recommendation. I'm quite happily employed in Information Security where I often have to give reports to people who likely aren't going to understand the exact magnitude of the risk. Communication is huge, and I'm sad to say I do have a patience problem which became evident the longer this thread continued.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Microsoft's services are so fragmented, any attempt to consolidate them is welcomed. It would be nice if they also worked on a consistent UI throughout all their properties. It feels like they outsource divisions to other companies with no UI specifications included.

The only unifying element is the Microsoft name in the URL. <http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx> <http://office.microsoft.com/en- us/> <http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us> <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/> <http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/>

And you can't say it's because they're a large company with many products because Apple manages to do a good job.

<http://www.apple.com/> <http://www.apple.com/iphone/> <http://www.apple.com/iwork/> <https://developer.apple.com/>

<comment><USER12> > _"And you can't say it's because they're a large company with many products > because Apple manages to do a good job."_

I have a theory about Microsoft's web presence and the diversity of presentation styles and plethora of discontinuous information channels associated with it.

My impression is that it is as if Microsoft management is trying to herd cats. And perhaps it is.

Unlike Apple, Microsoft made a lot of it's employees rich (probably more than any other company, ever). When your critical talent has fuck you money, a top down "implement the leader's vision" management style is probably less appropriate model than something drawing some features from academia's "share what you have learned from pursuing your interests" model.

Google has been somewhere between the two - people have had time to pursue their interests but sharing work product has had more management control (though far less management control than Apple).

What I suspect Microsoft is trying to do internally, is to rely on its new design aesthetic to be preferred on its merits rather than implemented by fiat. Not so much because there is a high percentage of employees with fuck you money any longer, but because doing so is consistent with the corporate culture developed at a time when their were.

At least that's my theory.

<comment><USER13> > Unlike Apple, Microsoft made a lot of it's employees rich (probably more > than any other company, ever). When your critical talent has fuck you money, > a top down "implement the leader's vision" management style is probably less > appropriate...

That's not the problem - the solution to that has been known for years - <USER2> options/grants and bonuses tied to corporate performance.

The problem is that Microsoft continued to grow rich by stagnating. The company got so good at milking it's cash cows, everything else had to be tied to those.

Furthermore, there was no vision at the top for over a decade. Ballmer may be many things but visionary is not one that most people would agree with. Vision is what allows you to see the iceberg looming in the distance, or the opening into a golden opportunity if you steer properly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The only thing being 'killed' is the names, the services are being 'unified' under more logical brand names.

<comment><USER12> Furthermore, the changes are consistent with the fundamental rubric of Metro Design - fierce reduction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The only one I still think was a missed opportunity is Zune. I have a Windows Phone and love it, but a lot of my friends consider the concept of a Windows Phone "icky". I don't think that Zune was such a failed brand that a Zune Phone couldn't have happened. Of course, I doubt business buyers would like that.

<comment><USER8> I really love the Zune product (to the point where I'm afraid of being branded a shill whenever I talk about it). Windows Phone is a nice system, but the Zune aspect is what sold me on it versus an iPhone. There's literally nothing that compares, and I'm amazed Apple has fallen so far behind.

Microsoft needs to do some image control to become "cool" again. They've got some amazing products that are right on the bleeding edge (Xbox, Zune/WP7, Windows 8 is kind of out-there and radical for better or worse), but Xbox is the only successfully "cool" brand they have. Because it doesn't have "Windows" attached to it.

If Zune was redefined as a phone (Not Zune Phone, just Zune), it would sell like hotcakes.

<comment><USER16> I have never owned or seen (IRL) a Zune. What's so great about it? What makes it better than an iPod?

<comment><USER17> For starters the software doesn't crush your machine as iTunes does to Windows.

Second of all, the physical player doesn't magically get a 'corrupted OS' or 'unhappy folder face' problem once a year - requiring trips to the Genius Bar.

The software does everything iTunes does like recommendations, folder tracking, etc - except you could get 'all you can eat' music for $10 / month.

In general the Zune HD device is just sick. Metro UI, intuitive touchscreen, and most importantly, completely unbreakable.

<comment><USER18> I have to second the completely unbreakable part. I have dropped it whilst biking many times (seriously I'm embarrassed to say like 4 times) and it has only a few minor dings to show for it despite tumbling on asphalt at 10-15 mph. It seems like the thickness of the aluminum bezel coupled with the thinner screen width protects the screen better than the ipod touch's. I also prefer the UI and basically what it came down to when deciding between the two for me was what I wanted: a really good touchsceen mp3 player or a more generally useful device/portable gaming machine. I already have my phone for the latter purpose so I went with the best mp3 player.

<comment><USER8> I did have mine "break" but I can still use it. Somehow the screen cracked from the inside. Speculation is the battery was overcharged and swelled. I looked it up on the Internet and pretty much every discussion about it was filled with people claiming those with broken screens must be lying or had damaged it somehow. Microsoft doesn't acknowledge a problem.

Oh well. It still works, and I have my WP7 now. The Zune is just for biking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The death of the Zune brand was announced ages ago. "Zune" has been nothing more than the punchline to a joke for years now.

And the failure of the Live brand is, well, not unexpected. It caps off a decade of weird and unfocused branding strategies from the Big M.

</comment><comment><USER20> Good to see Microsoft making some changes as regard to these services. They were confusingly named to begin with and the integration of them all into Windows seamlessly is what is going to hold them afloat while they figure out what they are doing on the mobile space.

</comment><comment><USER21> I had a Hotmail account 10 years ago.. did it change to a Live account before.. and now it's a Windows account?.. or wait is it now my MSN Messenger account?... I'm confused.

<comment><USER7> Microsoft Windows Live Mail Office 365 for Games for Windows Live. Get it right.

<comment><USER22> I couldn't find anything that looked like that. Are you just making stuff up?

<comment><USER23> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole>

<comment><USER22> I must admit that I expected Hacker News to be (well) not very much in to hyperbole :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm glad to see more companies moving away from overly invasive branding. I don't need to see the name of the company in front of everything.

No one would ever say "open Windows Live Photo Gallery". They would say something like "go to Photos" or "open the Photos app" and now this simplified branding will make these things more obvious and easier to find for the average consumer.

</comment><comment><USER25> As a Zune user since the first gen I'm pretty disappointed it didn't take off. I honestly can't imagine having to find another decent portable media player that works so well. Now I just need to keep my Zune HD functional for the rest of time.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd forgotten about the existence of Zune until this article!

</comment><comment><USER27> How many renamings have these things been through already?

<comment><USER28> If at first you don't succeed, rebrand, rebrand again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This reminds me of the "Windows Live Hotmail" fiasco.

Annoying as all the brand vacillation is, this move looks like it is in the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER30> Finally! Sane naming conventions from Microsoft? Hopefully, no more "Windows Phone 7 series phone" nonsense in the future.

</comment><comment><USER31> And yet it's not enough to catch Apple. Even Google's products are better integrated now.

</comment><comment><USER32> Link-bait. Aren't killing anything. This is an opinion article.

</comment><comment><USER33> Forget DDE, we're on to OLE now. Forget OLE, it's COM. You added a DispInterface to COM? Let's call it ActiveX, even though it has nothing to do with DirectX or any other -X. No, wait, let's put the X on the other end! XBox. Sweet. Windows CE makes too much sense, let's call it Windows Mobile, no wait, Windows Phone (so, no tablet vision?). Let's call it Outlook Express, even though it has no relationship to Outlook whatsoever. No wait, Outlook Express is dead. Oh, actually, it's now Windows Live Mail.

Microsoft should just give up on their perpetual rebranding and do some real work. I still can't put my HID Bluetooth device into park or sniff (low-power) mode because their Bluetooth stack _still_ sucks, but they've managed three or four rebranding efforts since Bluetooth hit the scene a decade ago. All of their rebranding efforts are just snapshots in time. They should just stick with naming things by year (or half decade), since that's really what it boils down to.

</comment><comment><USER34> To be fair these brands were dead long ago.

<comment><USER32> Disagree and unfair. These brands are alive and well. I use Zune, Contacts and pictures on a daily basis. Please make sure you know the topic before making unfair claims.

<comment><USER35> The name "Zune" is used as a punchline. Which is not to say a thing at all about the actual product or whether it should be used as a punchline, but it is.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone read Introduction to Algorithms? - <AUTHOR> Maybe I don't have the prerequisite knowledge or brain power but find this book:
a) routinely recommended b) quite dense and difficult despite having a touch more than 0 knowledge on algorithms
Am I dumb or missing something? <comment><USER2> I wouldn't say it's a book I'd sit down and read cover to cover. I recall reading the first few chapters, then just bouncing around the algorithms. It was also the reference book for an algorithm course I did. If you're finding it hard going then maybe go to a course, or lookup some youtube classes.

Edit: this may help "What is the best online data structure and algorithm MOOC/course in C/C++?" [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-online-data- structure...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-online-data-structure- and-algorithm-MOOC-course-in-C-C++)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your suggestion :) I'll check it out. I tend to focus more on books so maybe I should give a course a go.

</comment></comment><comment> d-crane I just finished my undergrad CS algorithms course, and my professor mentioned this book, but we didn't use it. He essentially said that it contains so much material that it's rather all-encompassing as a reference book, but he definitely discouraged it as a textbook for learning as we would in a course. It sounds like you'd likely want to find something more geared towards teaching.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you :) that's reassuring. What do you recommend?

<comment> d-crane Well, our text for the course was Levitin's Design and Analysis of Algorithms, but I really can't speak to its quality at all - we just used the professor's own prepared information pretty much exclusively. From my brief look through the book, it looked okay, at least!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It is a textbook. Typically, students don't read text books cover to cover (and often read very little or none). Instead, they perhaps read some of the few sections that are listed in the syllabus and follow the lectures and do the homework because that's usually what's on the test.

Outside academia those things are not an option and part of what makes a good book is that it can be read and reread over a long period of time and still be relevant.

One of my favorite essays:

[http://norvig.com/21-days.html](http://norvig.com/21-days.html)</comment>


Startups, Fix Your Blog Links - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jazzychad.net/2012/05/28/startups-fix-your-blog-links.html

<comment><USER2> Definitely agree that this is an issue, it often bugs me ... but the site linked presents the same problem, why can't i click my way to jazzychad.net?

Jazzychad - Fix Your Blog Links ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is true, there's not a direct link from my blog to my homepage... however I think that personal blogs fit it a different category. I'm not trying to sell my readers anything (except opinionated advice!), but the argument could be made that I am selling myself as the product.

At least you can click your way there through the "About" link in the header, albeit that _is_ two clicks.

Edit: Ok, after lots of people calling me out on this, I've added a link to my homepage in the nav section :)

<comment><USER2> I did notice that after my reply ... still, the main page tells me at least as much about you as your about page, and I often want to find out more about the author of an article I enjoyed, you are indeed the product!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Rather than linking to the homepage, we chose to make sure we linked to our relevant About page. <http://blog.tinfoilsecurity.com>

<comment><USER4> The whole navigation when on your blog seems confusing. If you click on the logo while on the blog, you get the blog home, but if you click the about link, you are taken to the main site with similar navigation (and a similar looking logo/layout). You really don't get the feeling that you've left the blog site.

Wouldn't it be simpler and much more straightforward to just add a blog link to both your blog and your main site, make your blog look like your main site and make the logo link to your main site. After all, isn't your blog part of your main site?

Also, when you click on your profile link on the right of your blog you get a posterous profile page. Seems like that should link to the about page as well.

<comment><USER3> I've updated the blog header a bit to have the logo take you to the home page and have a Blog link just for the blog.

Heh, it's not actually part of the "main site"; we're using Posterous for the blog, but I'm really happy you think it is part of it -- means my CSS hacks have worked. :)

<comment><USER4> Yes the subdomain is different, but they both share the same domain (that's what I meant by site) and both have to deal with the same thing--your company. Seems like they should as close to one another in look and feel (and navigation) as possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I had exactly the same issue with the flattr blog. I tried flattr.net then got to flattr.com but it was a pain and involved me typing in the URL. Bad! Anyway big +1.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is my biggest pet peeve on the entire internet. It seems no matter how intelligent and creative some people are, they always screw this up.

It's like when someone has bad breath, but online. You really don't want to mention it...

</comment><comment><USER7> I actually thought the exact same thing when I was browsing the Flattr blog. I spent a good 10 seconds looking for a link to the real site before giving up and manually changing the URL.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if JazzyChad would have used Flattr's blog as an example, or written this post at all, if Flattr hadn't made it to the front page six hours before this was posted.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would not have. Their link on HN was the straw that broke my back and finally pushed me to write my post. In fact, I say as much in the post :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's a secondary reason for this: SEO. If your blog gets links from other blogs, you'll want that link juice to flow back to your main site for Google rankings.

</comment><comment><USER10> I thought "YES! Please!" as soon as I saw the post title. It's one of those things that always annoyed me, but not enough to say anything about it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Thanks for this post. I thought I was the only one getting a little upset about this.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do no other laptop manufacturers get it? - <AUTHOR> I don't own a Macbook, but when people ask me what they should get it's hard to recommend a good alternative.
For every other manufacturer - do the model names and numbers have to be so opaque? They could all cut it down to 5 or 6 well designed, sensibly named models and still sell more units.
Whenever a friend is looking for a machine they try and wade through the HP, Dell and Sony websites. Eventually they give up trying to decipher the model names, and whether they should be looking iin "Everyday", "Performance", "Thin & Light" or "Business" categories and end up ordering a Macbook.
The HP G62-105SA? The Dell Latitude E5410? HP you also sell the Compaq Presario CQ61-406SA? What are these machines? What the hell is wrong with you?
I've owned the 13 inch Dell XPS machines. They were pretty good, but are apparently discontinued. <comment> old-gregg I am surprised nobody mentioned the disappearance of usable LCD panels from the laptop market. As far as I know there aren't any true 16 million color IPS models out there and nobody sells normal aspect ratio laptops either: they're all chopped off at the top, hence only 900 vertical pixels instead of 1024, including all Macbooks.

Yesterday I bumped into a person in the office with an oldie 15" IBM Thinkpad with 1440x1024 resolution true-color IPS panel with 174/174 degree viewing angle: it was gorgeous. That's the machine I want. And IBM used to market them simply too: TXY where X and Y were used to represent panel size and the generation.

My $900 TV beats the hell out of my laptops as far as picture quality is concerned (I own a matte screen MBP and a latest Thinkpad). And that's just a TV! When I get to work and stare at a proper IPS-equipped Dell I wonder if I ever see a picture that good on any laptop again.

I also don't get those "98% color gamut" 6-bit laptop panel ads: they're using 18 bits per pixel, who are they kidding?

<comment><USER3> I agree! The 4:3 screens are much more useful for programming and reading the web, the "chopped off" are good only to watch wide videos. Are notebook users really mostly buying the notebook only to watch videos?

"There's simply no choice" -- I'd say of course, since consumers didn't care when they started to buy the worse ones, the manufacturers rightly concluded that they can kill the more expensive variants completely.

I've read more critiques of iPads that stated: "it doesn't have a wide screen." Were they written by competitors? Or are consumers really already trained to actually desire the worse?

<comment><USER4> I hate "wide screens" with a passion - I call them short screens instead. My pet theory is that the LCD manufacturers like short screens better because they can sell fewer pixels while still advertising the same diagonal length.

<comment><USER5> That's not a pet theory, it's simply true.

<comment><USER4> Heh, well, I can't think of a good way to prove that one, so I thought I'd be careful not to overstate my case. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Agreed. There are two problems that compound on each other but are somewhat distinct

1\. Excessive models. They make this look work than it is by essentially having 2-4 customizations of the same model and presenting them as different models.

2\. Confusing attempts to segment. Having the first step on the website be choosing which "segment" you want confuses the user. I'll pick a segment, then be unsure if I'm not seeing models that I'd like to see. Savvy consumers assume that "Home" mean "crummy," but "Business" isn't exactly right either.

<comment><USER7> I think these companies thrive with a confusing market. If you can easily compare two products then the purchase is muddied. I've seen this often with different grocery store products in regards to volumes and masses on sale for fungible items.

I think it's best to have confusing figures and specs when you have all these manufacturers who are really trying to produce the cheapest of something (in this case PCs or cellphones). You put the money and the marketing in maybe one overworked detail (big screen, big HDD, fast video card) and then cheap out on everything else. So if they want a certain user to buy their product, they emphasize what they think that user wants.

<comment><USER8> It is especially infuriating in the grocery store when they "go to the trouble" of adding conversion information to the shelf label but then aren't consistent with the units on similar products. Thanks HEB, since you did the math I know that this juice is $0.03/oz. and that juice is $0.79/liter. That helps alot.

<comment><USER9> I once saw a (pre-packaged, junk food) product that was priced at "$0.35 per 100g" or some such, when the individual portions within the box were 75g each.

This is much more frustrating when they do it with nutritional information, showing you the nutritional values for 0.87 individually wrapped jam cakes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have an idea about model numbers involving gross overgeneralization:

Asian cultures have a fetish for numbers. When working with a Korean company in the past, they would list their questions/answers in email in numbered lists; never bulleted or simply segmented in paragraphs, always numbered. In Mandarin, not only are the months simply numbered (it's not "June", it's "Month 6"), but extended family get the same treatment ("13th Aunt"). Goku and Vegeta (yeah, great example) keep blathering about numbered Power Levels.

Like I said, overgeneralization, but it's just a thought.

As for the original question; as most people say, the other laptop manufacturers provide a wider set of choices, and they offer them at prices people can actually afford.

<comment><USER11> I always thought that they did this as a courtesy to their dealers, to prevent price comparison. This has often been the case with stereo components. You might go into Store A and see that the Brand X 5667 preamp is going for $499. The photo store in New York's catalog has the Brand X 56672 preamp costing $449.

"Wait a minute," you ask the salesman, "this preamp is fifty dollars less if I order it from the photo store catalog."

"No, no, no," the salesman replied smoothly, "they're selling the Brand X 5667 _2_. This is the 5667. It's better."

<comment><USER12> Mattress manufacturers are even worse about this-- they create entirely separate model names for each retailer-- Macy's sells the Serta Supreme but Sleepy's sells the Serta Deluxe and 800-MATTRESS sells the Serta Max, all of which are exactly the same mattress.

Of course, mattress manufacturing is a swindle on a whole other level...

<comment><USER13> Build your own mattress, it's cheaper. <http://www.ehow.com/how_4809580_own- foam-mattress.html> And it's a fun geek project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Most laptop manufacturers constantly update the hardware that is in each model. When they do this they change a number or a letter somewhere.

Apple only updates the hardware in its machines about once a year. You could spend $1300 on a new laptop only to learn the following week that Apple is now selling a significantly better machine for that same price.

Traditionally Apple has appealed more on the basis of emotion and design rather than hardware specs per dollar.

Most people don't care what video card is in their laptop, so Apple's approach seems to be better. The danger to Apple is that people would put off purchases while waiting for the newer model. This surely occurs, but to date Apple has offered enough other advantages (case design, OS design) to minimize the impact of this on sales. The commodity PC firms compete only on the basis of hardware, so a few hundred megahertz or gigabytes make a difference in their ability to differentiate.

<comment><USER15> Well, I ordered a 15" MBP about a month before this year's line came out. It was my first one, so I was unaware of their typical upgrade cycle, macrumors, etc. I was well past the return date and feeling like shit. I called them up and they RMA'd it, waived the restocking fee and paid the return shipping, no questions asked. I got a significantly better machine for about $300 cheaper. I was giddy like a schoolgirl.

<comment><USER16> Yeah they can do this because A) most people don't care enough or even think to try this and B) at the end of the product cycle, the original one was so overpriced that they can still make a profit off selling the refurb.

<comment><USER17> and then you have those of us who buy the refurb, because it's not that bad a machine, especially when compared with the newer one in price per what you get.

It benefits all of us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Not just model #'s. Try and find a good and reliable 1900x1080 laptop. I tried and ended up getting a MacBook Pro. I've used a lot of laptops over the years (all Windows based), none of which were Macs. The build quality of this thing is amazing. Yes, it was expensive. Was it worth it? I think it's easily 2x better than the ASUS I almost bought--ASUS and Sony were the ones that had 1900x1080 or higher res. I never buy Sony because of the bad experiences I've had with their hardware. The ASUS got too many bad reviews on New Egg... hence the Mac purchase.

No wonder everyone wants a Mac laptop. They are simply the best.

And, I use Linux and Windows mainly, though I have a Mac mini as a media center. I own an Android phone. I am in no way a fanboy.

<comment><USER19> Thinkpad t510 does 1900x1080 if you get the upgraded video card

<comment><USER20> > 1900x1080

1900?

20 horizontal pixels short of full HD?

Why?

<comment><USER19> My guess is that they used to be 1900x1200, but someone got the clever idea that they could save a few bucks and market it as HD (it does have the number 1080 in it!) at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My #1 reason to buy Apple laptops: keyboard. All I want is a simple keyboard layout, like Apple's...no extra keys...no numeric keypad...no page- up&down...no custom keys to control media...oh yeah, and also drop all the extra ways to click the mouse...just give me a big touch area and drop the three extra keys and eraser-knob.

If anyone knows of a manufacturer doing it right, please let me know as I am tired of paying a premium to get a sane keyboard. At the moment going Apple for both desktop and laptop allows me to use the exact same keyboard whether I'm at home or on the road. So bonus points to a laptop manufacturer that also sells an external keyboard to match my desktop same as embedded in the laptop.

Seriously, there has to be a market for this!!! The keyboard is the single most important input device. Build it right and they will come.

<comment><USER22> Wow, I'm the complete opposite. So much so, that I bought an external keyboard with the 3 keys and eraser-knob for my desktop system. Damnit Apple, I'm USING those function keys, Fn-F7 for mute is no good; give me a single button for mute so I can make it shut-up! PLEASE give me a page-up and page-down, for when I need to go up a page and down a page, I also want a home and an end key. (Don't want a numeric keypad though.)

I do, however, very much want the same input - and the closest I've found is a Thinkpad w/ an eraser-knob and an external Thinkpad keyboard w/ the eraser- knob.

I wonder how hard it would be to build an external keyboard with 'a big touch area' out of mac parts - they're both usb to begin with, all you'd need is a sleek enclosure for it.

<comment><USER22> (Roughly $130 + labor, judging from this part - [http://www.powerbookmedic.com/MacBook-Keyboard--Top-Case- Tra...](http://www.powerbookmedic.com/MacBook-Keyboard--Top-Case-Trackpad- White-13-New-p-16958.html) )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's brand reinforcement. Notice, each time you typed those, you typed the name of the manufacturer.

Not saying it's a better approach than the Macbook, but high end car manufacturers do it too. It's why Lexus and Mercedes have cars named like LS400, S500, etc. You have to say the brand name with each model, reinforcing the brand.

<comment><USER24> Just as apple does with Mac*....In their case "Mac" IS the brand.

<comment><USER23> Good point, they were just a bit more creative in their method of brand reinforcement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The 17" Dell XPS were just as good in terms of design as Apple, just with different goals. They are also fairly easy to maintain. I saved money by buying the "multimedia" model Inspiron with the same chassis. (And yes, I've replaced the keyboard and screen on my Dell. Straightforward and quick operations. I also own a Macbook, and let me tell you, the take apart is a _lot_ more complicated.)

You will get good value, solid build, and maintainability at the expense of aesthetics and portability.

EDIT: FWIW, Dell have had a history of using standard parts, so Linux compatibility has been very high as well.

<comment><USER26> Interesting. Any other brands/models that have this modular design? I bought a Gateway (super cheap for the features) for work/gaming. Unfortunately, the build quality sucks. I should have known better, but I thought I was getting a bargain.

I must say the HP's that dayjob hands out are pretty darn tough, but also super expensive.

<comment><USER27> I don't know about the other manufacturers, but I'm ready to sing praises for Thinkpads here. Every single part inside has a part number and pretty much all of these parts are orderable online. Many are interchangeable between models, though the information on that can be a bit difficult to find. There are PDF service manuals that describe in detail how to completely strip down the machine piece by piece available for pretty much every single model since at least ten years ago if you know where to look (Thinkwiki).

It's not really the Apple way, but it's pretty awesome if you're the type of person who's into lots and lots of information about everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Apple offers a rather limited range of laptops. Other manufacturers are attempting to offer a greater range of options for all consumers (and consider for companies like HP and Dell, their largest customers are corporations). The codes allow for easier differentiation in a given product line.

That said, Dell seems to have the sanest conventions, with HP/Compaq offer nothing more than product codes.

<comment><USER29> And having too many options is what is killing these companies compared to Apple. Quite frankly people don't care that you have XYZ mobo processor or graphics card inside. They just want the dam thing to work.

"Tyranny of Choice" at its best.

<comment><USER30> Wasn't that the lesson Apple learned the hard way? IIRC one of the first thing Jobs did on his return to Apple was to trim the product line.

<comment><USER31> Yep. Pre-Jobs, the Apple offerings were as muddled as the PC examples given above, especially with the introduction of the PPC boxes, which were all assigned names like 7200/75 or 7215/90. Steve did away with all of these and offered only four core products (iBook, PowerBook, G-series and iMac) until the intro of the Cube, which nobody remembers, and the iPod, which nobody can forget. :)

<comment><USER32> It was even worse than that because they had the Performa (low end) and Quadra (high end) lines and certain models were identical. Also at different times they had the "LC"(Low Cost) series and just plain "Power Macintosh" series.

Read this and try to keep it straight: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_5300>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I bought a Thinkpad not too long ago. Thinkpads have a good reputation, their new cheap(-ish) "SL" models are very affordable, and their website makes sense (just select a few things you want and they'll present you with a sensible list of options).

Of course, every country seems to have their own range of models, so Lenovo is not free of suck either.

<comment><USER34> I'll admit to being biased since I'm waiting for my new Thinkpad T410 to arrive, but I think the Thinkpad line is pretty logically segmented and named. The current convention is that each segment has a common prefix ("T" for their standard workhorse line, "X" for the ultra-portable line, "SL" for the more affordable small-business line etc.) w/ the suffix indicating the screen size, e.g., T410 for the 14", X201 for the 12". Of course there are exceptions such as the Thinkpad Edge, but generally it's pretty easy to compare the various models.

While Apple's practice of not publicizing their model names in their advertising might superficially make things simpler, it means you have to explicitly list the model year w/ specs to do a meaningful comparison between current and older models.

<comment><USER35> I have a T60 and love it. It's built like a tank. Has a good keyboard and the "stick" mouse pointer (which I really like). It is a bit heavy to lug around, but it is my only machine and it is a good compromise between portable and usable.

<comment><USER36> Lenovo (IBM) has the best naming convention of the ones I've dealt with. Dell's site is so confusing and abyssmal that I simply could not help a friend buy a PC - had to go with HP.

This will be the last Windows PC I help somebody buy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The Sony Vaio Z series is a freaking awesome device. A friend got one recently and it's making me rethink getting another mac for my next laptop:

[http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryD...](http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644570897)

Core i7, 8 gigs of ram, I think he's got THREE SSD drives in Raid 0 in there ( I know you can buy outright with a 2 ssd raid 0 config but I found an engadget article referencing QUAD ssd - [http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/19/sony-vaio- z-brings-quad-s...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/19/sony-vaio-z-brings- quad-ssd-drive-and-dynamic-graphics-switching/)). It's a 13" machine and weighs 3 pounds.

It doesn't run Mac OS but I find myself needing Linux more often these days than Mac. It's hard to say no to a beautiful piece of hardware like that.

To be fair though - nothing beats walking into the Apple Store when my macbook breaks and having them do an overnight repair.

<comment><USER38> That's a great looking machine, and the specs are awesome, but I refuse to buy Sony Vaio. They have some of the worst driver support ever, supporting the exact version of Windows shipped and nothing else, ever. Forget about Linux support, it doesn't exist. Forget about even supporting future service packs of the Windows release.

When Windows 7 SP1 comes out and Sony refuses to update your drivers, enjoy your $3,000 paperweight. Been there, done that, refuse to buy a Vaio ever again.

<comment><USER39> linux support doesnt exist? i plugged in Arch USB key and and wiped Win7 first thing - GMA500 is the only problem, but that effects so many devices these days that its inevitable a working driver comes out some time

<comment><USER38> Uh... without GMA500 support you're running Linux in either text only or 800x600 with no hardware acceleration. You call that usable?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Totally agree, it's almost as if the HP, Dell and Sony websites are intentionally designed to drive any potential customers to Apple.

</comment><comment><USER41> There's a class of people who just don't get that this is an issue. You can see it in the comments here. These model numbers are an opaque code that needs to be deciphered. Just because you happen to have learned how to decipher them doesn't make them any less opaque and cryptic.

<comment><USER42> Your comment is spot on. I am really amazed at some of the comments here that are attempting to explain in one way or another that all companies except Apple need to have dozens of different models. It's great to offer the consumer choice, but that's not really what is happening here. These companies are offering confusion. Apple also offers choice, but it's a choice between only three models and a few different configuration options. I could see other companies having maybe six or seven models and still being able to have something for pretty much any type of customer.

I was recently looking through the laptop section of ASUS's web site. I would estimate that they must have somewhere around 100 different models. Then they further compound the problem by making it hard to navigate between the pages for the different models. I just totally gave up. It seems like they might make some nice stuff, but figuring out which one is right for me is way too much effort.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> That and the whole design issue.

I want to buy a laptop that looks nice, so sue me. Actually I had a discussion about this very topic today with someone.

Any non-Apple laptop suggestions that don't look ugly and will run some *nix variation?

<comment><USER44> Thinkpad. You can't beat the Darth Vader styling.

<comment><USER45> Absolutely. My brain must just not be wired right to appreciate Apple's designs because I think MacBooks aren't all that pretty. I liked the look of the iPhone when it first came out because the rest of the cellphone market was hideous, but by now Apple has fallen behind and even with the 4th gen phone the look is somewhat stale.

ThinkPads, on the other hand, have barely changed at all but still look like you can sit down and get some bloody work done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Furthermore, why is it that until recently you could not get a non-apple laptop that looked like they actually tried to design the case to be even remotely aesthetically pleasing. The smooth contours of my macbook pro totally outclass winbooks in this aspect. The Dell Adamo series is really the first non apple product Ive seen that comes close, but its still not there.

<comment><USER47> Agreed, virtually all modern notebooks are nasty and blingy, not to mention coated in gloss that seems custom-formulated to maximize fingerprint appearance.

The best looking winbook I've seen in a while was a deliberate MacBook Air clone by MSI. It was so well done as to be indistinguishable from the real thing at a distance of five meters or more.

<comment><USER48> I really don't understand glossy screens. I can't work anywhere with a light source behind me.

Why have they overtaken the PC laptop market so much?

<comment><USER49> Higher contrast ratio.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> That's the same problem that General Motors has (had?).

Too many sub-brands and models that are almost all the same (lots of badge engineering) and are renamed constantly, nobody knows exactly what's what, and so they go to Toyota or Honda and pick one of the few models that everybody can immediately recognize.

</comment><comment><USER51> I almost feel like I should do a separate 'Ask HN' for this but..

Does anyone else really want a netbook equivalent in a laptop sized model? When it comes to my development environment, especially with dynamic languages, I don't really NEED Core i7s and high end video cards. RAM size seems to matter much more as does HD speed.. But really, if I am using the computer for work I only really need it to run Chrome, Vim, and maybe Eclipse. My little EeePC netbook hand handle that quite easily.

The problem for me is the form factor. I love my EeePC to death for it's battery life and portability. It was a life safer for me on my vacation to S.Korea last year (small enough to easily slip into my day pack for regular access at Wifi hotspots). But I simply CAN NOT program on it. The screen is too small, the resolution is too small, and the keyboard is too small for me to type easily.

What I REALLY want is a super light laptop with a gorgeous 15/17 inch screen and a netbook-like 10+ hour battery life. The closest thing I know of toward my ideal is the Macbook Air, but even that seems to have a different design goal in mind (and is far too pricey).

Does anyone know any manufactures or models that fit this profile? I feel like there isn't anyone really focusing on providing a good "hacker's laptop"

<comment><USER52> MSI X-Slim and Acer Timeline are both available as 15" CULV machines - <USER2> sure if they are available in the US, but they are about as close as you get to a 15" Netbook.

Otherwise, a 13" Macbook Pro is also an option - 13", amazing battery life, only a bit heavier than a Macbook Air - and much cheaper.

[http://gizmodo.com/5158557/msis-x+slim-x340-x600-are-two- mor...](http://gizmodo.com/5158557/msis-x+slim-x340-x600-are-two-more- sub+1000-macbook-air-lookalikes)

<http://www.acer.com/timeline/spec/spec.html>

<http://www.acer.co.za/timelinepro/home.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> You can't out-Apple Apple.

It's been tried many times. No personal computer company besides Apple has succeeded at selling a lifestyle like they do. That's what product names like that are for--describing the sort of person a product is intended for. Since non-Apple laptop manufacturers don't aim their products at specific enviable lifestyles and instead try to market to everyone, they don't use names like that and instead opt for nondescript numbers.

<comment><USER25> I think Apple is picking out demographics/cohorts that are the most profitable, then marketing directly to _them_. It makes perfect sense for them to market to the style-conscious. Style-conscious demand gives the producer the opportunity to make a profit through the value-add of design.

This isn't shallowness. It's very smart economic thinking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> System76 does a great job of this. 6 laptops, 6 desktops, and 5 servers. They lay them out on a page so you can make a fairly quick guess about which one or two you want. They come with Ubuntu and seem fairly reasonably priced too.

</comment><comment><USER55> I like my indie laptop manufacturer:

<http://www.rockdirect.com/notebooks.php>

2 models, no confusion. And it's just upgrades on those models as in you customize those how you want it.

</comment><comment><USER56> I have been using laptops since 1997, many different brands, shapes and colors. The one that I had stayed with the longest is ThinkPad. Very simple lines, non-descript raw functionally, the TrackPoint, and up until recently IPS displays. I was forced to buy a new laptop a month ago and went with the ThinkPad SL510. Installed an SSD myself. Very nice build quality, even the slightly less matte casing is an okay compromise to get the price to $680 in my option. The only thing is the pure crap TN panel in the thing and 16:9 ratio is not made for getting work done.

If the reason for crap laptop panels is the big three (Samsung, etc) making crap TN panels then lets get together and do something about it. Lenovo said that if they had only 15,000 confirmed orders they would make an IPS model to spec.

</comment><comment><USER57> Many people believe that the sole reason the Japanese car companies started to beat the American car companies in the late 80s was because of quality. I think that is only part of the reason... To me, the biggest reason was choice and the purchasing process. When you went to buy an American car you literally had about 1000 options (and that might be too low of a number). When you went to buy a Japanese car you had like 3 options: SL, GL, SE (as an example), and about 3-5 colors to choose from. That was it!

We can see the same thing with computers today, and Apple is the equivalent of the Japanese car makes in terms of choice. Guess what, it works!

</comment><comment><USER58> One of the reasons for model # segmentation amongst the laptops sold in retail stores: price competition offers ie: "If you find this model cheaper somewhere else in the next 14 days and we'll beat the price"

</comment><comment><USER59> I have had a macbook. after 3 weeks with it, I gave it to my wife, and switched back to thinkpad.

She's happy with the mac, in fact, she can't use windows ever since she experienced mac, and I just missed my linux box, so were quite happy back home.

two weeks ago I purchased ThinkPad X200, it is loaded with the latest ubuntu and work like a charm.

I consider this set up far better than the Macbook in all terms. I am not familiar with the models you have mentioned though I only had two laptops (gateway and dell around year 2000) before I understood that thinkpad is the way to go.

</comment><comment><USER60> I recently bought my first MacBook and was wondering exactly the same thing.

How can all of the other manufacturers miss the point to this extent?

Simple branding. Simple model distinction. "15 inch". Elegance. High quality. Visual appeal. No wonder Apple has been so successful... everyone else is so poor, and so caught up in the middle of the pack. Sony is the only other company offering laptops to appeal to the high-end and theirs are kind of a joke.

<comment><USER61> Just so you know, my 'sofa laptop' is my wife's old 'day 1' 13" MacBook.

Still trucking along! Great little machine. 4 years of use for $1099, and still runs XCode decently. Incredible value.

Tip for people with multiple macs. If you want to use two at once, download 'teleport' which allows one machine to cursor surf into the adjacent machine. I have a 20" iMac, 17" monitor, then my MBP parked on the end, with the mouse happily roaming across all 3 screens!

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I also agree, but I have a feeling that at some point in the 90's when "tech geek" stuff was cool, the model numbers actually helped their marketing.

</comment><comment><USER63> I know this will seem quite elitist but here goes...

 _Eventually they give up trying to decipher the model names, and whether they should be looking in "Everyday", "Performance", "Thin & Light" or "Business" categories and end up ordering a Macbook._

The thing is, if you don't know exactly what features you want(clock speed and manufacturer warranty on the RAM for instance), you will most likely be sold snake oil.

The model numbers on most OEMs are so complex because they are superfluous. After weeks of comparison shopping on motherboards, I can tell you the features and specs of my final purchase offhand, but I'd need to search for the model number simply because I don't _need to know it_.

Honestly that's what it comes down to in my opinion, you don't care about learning model numbers. I don't blame you, they are relatively meaningless. But you also don't want to learn about the hardware you're buying, and I assert this leaves the buyer at a disadvantage.

I know not everyone cares weather they are actually getting what they need for the best price. Many would rather not take the time, and are looking for a way to make smart purchases without bothering to understand what they buy.

It's just not possible, the compromises shift around from high price for high quality(apple) to good quality, good price and no service(oem brownbox) and everything else.

Again informed shopping isn't for everyone. When comparing laptops, the actual brand is almost the least important factor for me, above shipping costs but well below the manufacturers warranty(which is different on every unit).

The best, most popular brands sometimes ship crappy or broken products, this is a fact. How are you protected from that? Trust in a brand?

This is the same for anything really, from food to cars to USB drives.

</comment><comment><USER64> There are advantages to a good naming system, but I don't think the MacBooks have a great one. Sure it is simple today, but their support pages end up a bit of a joke because of it, talking about late-2006 models and such. They end up abstracting away relevant distinctions.

</comment><comment><USER65> The Thinkpad T60p is superb. I have an excellent screen that is 1600x1200 and large enough to run a 2x2 grid of SSH sessions. And the ultrabay is great for a second drive, second battery, or DVD. Very highly recommended.

<comment><USER66> My T60p's screen died (sob Im gonna miss that 1600x1200 IPS) and I recently replaced it with a new 15" MBP and find it better in almost every way except the screen (even with 1680x1050, its not same quality) and the excellent Lenovo/IBM CS where I now have to deal with the joke that is Applecare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> If you must do windows, do Sony Vaio + Windows 7 ... Might have to de-crapify depending on how you buy, but when done you'll have powerful, stylish machine that pretty much "just works".

</comment><comment><USER52> I think the one factor is purely volume. Apple has a very small range of laptops, compared with other manufacturers. And they have a relatively large market share for the segment of the market they compete in ($1000 plus laptops). Hence, for x dollars of sales, they sell 1 model - compared with their competitors, who all have to sell many more models. So they can spend significantly more on the R&D and design for each model, and still be profitable. This shows in their systems.

</comment><comment><USER68> They are geeks. Geeks like customization and will talk about gadget specs for hours. If one really cares about specs, then I'd argue the countless codes make it easier to shop among the hundreds of selections. You can quickly figure out what is "technologically superior", without derailing into an Mac- vs-PC sort of debate.

Most normal people just want a simple computer that works (tm). For them, a Macbooks is probably just fine. Anything else is probably equally ok too.

<comment><USER69> As a geek I'd like to be able to easily compare specs across a manufacturer's product line, and for some reason only Apple does this. Meanwhile Dell has taken to hiding the resolution of their displays, which is somewhat understandable since they're often the horrible 1366x768 at 15" or 1600x900 at 17". (Apple also gets credit for resisting the 16x9 trend for laptop screens. Note to everyone else: almost all documents are taller than they are wide).

<comment><USER68> Manufacturers generally do have very detailed spec pages for their products (e.g. [http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdet...](http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=320-7825))

Are you talking about side-by-side comparison pages? I'd imagine that if you only have so many products, having a page like this (<http://www.apple.com/mac/whichmacbook/compare.html>) is pretty much a no- brainer, but I'm not sure this would work so well when you're a manufacturer with several dozens offerings, dealing with people that care about what type of RAM they're getting, or what particular video card gives the most performance for their specific (limited) budgets.

<comment><USER70> But Apple gives you _that_ level of customization once you select a general size and tier of computer type based on your needs and price - and they don't have to segment a single model as though they were all totally separate models to meet the needs of multiple audiences, cause it's pretty obvious the distinctions between all their models. No one model of 15" MacBook Pro but rather fifty different configurations of a 15" MBP with 2-8GB RAM, half a dozen HDD capacities, a couple of SSD options, a few more video cards....."oh the 8gb ram+SSD option is great for you, Pro User!" vs "As a casual home user, you should get this Super Basic Model!" where they're both basically the same except one's got more ram, a slightly better processor, and an SSD.

The really odd thing is that all these manufacturers like Dell let you further customize the laptop you're looking at once you actually manage to find one you want. But they don't make it easy to figure out what exactly you're getting in the very beginning, and the process to get started has never been less convoluted as far as I can remember.

I may be a geek, but that doesn't mean I have half an hour to dig through ten thousand useless configurations when all I want to start with is a very, very, very basic laptop and just customize it a bit. I very much like the way Apple makes it so braindead easy (and a _lot_ cleaner). All I went was "I want a mid-size display", "I want a half decent spec" and ended up with a mid-2009 midrange 15" MBP with my own SSD installed. Perfect. The whole purchase took less time than looking for the right "audience" I fit into to get the best models+prices on other sites.

<comment><USER68> >> they don't make it easy to figure out what exactly you're getting in the very beginning

I've bought computers from both Dell and Apple, and I think their sites are about the same. If you go to the Dell site, right off the bat, you can choose whether it's a home or a business computer. Then you can pick based on rough specs and price, and then customize from there. Which is not to say you _have_ to customize. You don't. Same with Apple.

The main difference was _my_ mentality when choosing who to buy from. With Dell, I wanted to customize. With Apple I wanted to not have to care. I think generally that's the main determining factor when people choose a manufacturer.

<comment><USER69> _If you go to the Dell site, right off the bat, you can choose whether it's a home or a business computer._

Not only "can", but "must", which is really obnoxious. If I pick "business", are they going to try to rip me off because they figure I'm not spending my own money? If I pick "home", are they only going to show me the cheap stuff? There's no reason (that benefits users) to segment their products like that.

<comment><USER68> >> If I pick "business", are they going to try to rip me off because they figure I'm not spending my own money? If I pick "home", are they only going to show me the cheap stuff?

That's a strawman, considering Apple computers generally cost way more than the PC equivalents, and that Apple can be quite the cheapskate in components also (e.g. when i bought mine, it had a crappy the-sort-of-thing-you'd-see-in- a-HP video card and no upgrade options). Also, if the wizard-style sites bug you, retailer sites are often more "window-shopping" oriented.

(On a off-topic side note, I just noticed you can search Dell laptops by screen size, by weight and some other parameters. That's pretty cool [http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=gen&...](http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=gen&cat=prod&k=laptop&rpp=12&p=1&subcat=sys%2fnotebooks&rf=all&nk=f&sort=K&ira=False&~srd=False&ipsys=False&advsrch=False&~ck=anavTop))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Panasonic does it nicely with it's "Business Rugged" toughbooks (though they're in the same range as Apple's stuff in the price/perfs ratio):

* F-series for the high-rugged 14' high mobility (Qualcomm Gobi option) * T-series for the lightweight, 12", touchscreen * W-series for the more consumer oriented with DVD drive * The new C-series for the tablet convertible

Series letter comes with a digit (the generation) increased by one each time (F7, F8, F9). There, done.

</comment><comment><USER72> The good laptops (often classified as gaming laptops) are made by ODMs (like Sager, Clevo and MSI) and resold by small boutique laptop sellers powernotebooks, xoticpc, etc are the ones with good reputation on notebookforums. Typically these sellers allow you to customize down to the thermal compound on the processors.

The VoodooPC notebooks a.k.a HP Envy is quite good too - check out the 16GB RAM capacity for future-proofing.

</comment><comment><USER73> Lenovo is still pretty solid, though decreasing is quality pretty rapidly. I could probably name for you their 5 or 6 thinkpad brands (s,w,t,r,... well apparently I can only name 4) but I couldn't for the life of me tell you the difference between any of them.

But I don't think the branding is the primary problem.

</comment><comment><USER74> Just out of curiosity (as it is closely related to a side project I'm working on), would you find utility in a listing of laptops across a range of manufacturers arranged in a way that would make comparisons of CPU/LCD/hard drive(s)/memory/etc painless?

</comment><comment><USER75> Fujitsu makes great ones: [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...](http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=fujitsu+laptops)

</comment><comment><USER76> 13 Inch Dell XPS suck, I have one. It gets too hot. I don't like the poorly finished silver on the black. The screen is too glossy.

I hugely recommend the Lenevo X200. Awesome build quality.

</comment><comment><USER77> APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!

Name-friendly, not just user-friendly needed.

</comment><comment><USER7> Here here. The same for the iPhone. It's better this year because of the features, it's tiered because of storage space! That simple.

When I first got a cell phone I was pretty frustrated. There wasn't even any sort of good, better, better still. One phone had a camera, one could play music, another had some other shitty feature. What the hell? It seemed to me that a lot of those options could somehow be bundled together? I was never happy with any of the choices I made.

I think the philosophies of these companies is just to make a new model to "capture" a certain market sector they identified. So if they identified many different niches then that's what they build. Not to mention the fact that they keep old models around for years at lower and lower prices. Why discontinue it if they were able to lower the cost so much that they can maybe sell more?

Kind of stupid.

</comment><comment><USER78> Only top-tier, status goods could be sold with a boutique system as a collections, like fashion clothes, elite cars and so on.

Apple got it years ago, almost everyone else are lagging behind.

The manufacturers of a cheap consumer goods must use appropriate strategies. Creating a mess with model numbers to puzzle a customer and promote them in terms of marketing slogans instead of actual specifications is the one of the most popular in consumer electronics.</comment>


Tool to build rust structs to parse given JSON - <AUTHOR> https://rusty-json.herokuapp.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I built this a couple of days ago to deal with parsing complex JSON in Rust. Comments / suggestions / bugs / pull requests welcome!

<comment><USER2> Are you also aware of Serde? [https://crates.io/crates/serde](https://crates.io/crates/serde)

It's generally preferred over rustc_serialize (which is sort of only intended for use by the compiler itself).

<comment><AUTHOR> Serde is great if you're running on nightly</comment></comment></comment>


The Economics of Kenneth Arrow - <AUTHOR> https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030323 <comment><USER2> It's a testament to the sheer breadth of Arrow's work that he essentially created the field of health economics and it's only given a cursory mention in the intro.

The below (not excessively mathematical) paper was light years ahead of its time, and is well worth a read even now.

[https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture0...](https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Of all the things that I thought I would never see on HN. However, this is a technical review, and needs an advanced formal economics education to appreciate.

<comment><USER4> You (or anyone else) aware of an intro to his work for mere mortals?

<comment><USER5> Arrow's work is covered (at a high level) in "Licence to be Bad, How Economics Corrupted Us" by Jonathan Aldred:

[https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/306/306792/licence-to-be- bad...](https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/306/306792/licence-to-be- bad/9780241325438.html)

Edit: A _really_ good book - once I finished listening to the audiobook version I went right back to the start and listened to it again and I'm going to order a paper version.

<comment><USER6> Economics is an imperfect field, but a major source of criticism of it is that many people fundamentally object to the idea that you can ask "is" questions about the economy. The only proper questions are "ought" questions, and since economics is mostly about "is" questions, it's automatically suspect.

There really were a group of economists that fit the "license to be bad" stereotype, such as Milton Friedman. But Arrow was not one of them.

<comment><USER7> One of the main criticisms of classical political economy (including Quesnay...) and indeed of modern neoclassical economics is that they pretend not to have any normative content despite, for instance in the case of modern economists, a theory of value whose historical evolution was a direct response to the normative power of labour theories. It is a specific set of ideas in response to a social formation, and it's one reason so many economists are allergic to talking about medieval or ancient economies.

<comment><USER6> Modern economics doesn't really have a theory of value, which is a 19th century concern. (Arguably, Quesnay was the first person to have a theory of value.) Or, if you prefer, economics have a subjective theory of value. This has some normative content -- if you think the purpose of human existence is the greater glory of God you will find economics pretty disappointing -- but economists no longer try to explain what things are "really" worth.

Your argument is an example of what I mean, though. The labor theory of value lost out on "is" grounds -- there are too many things it can't explain. Now some of the people who made this argument were right-wingers, so if you think that only "ought" questions matter, the fact that people with the wrong notion of "ought" made a contribution proves that the whole thing is morally bankrupt.

There are economic historians, but economists don't talk about medieval or ancient economies just because they don't have much to say. Historians are better equipped to understand them. Though a recent paper applied a trade model (the gravity equation) to predict the locations of Assyrian ruins, so maybe there's more to be done.

<comment><USER8> The fact that expected utility theory isn't nearly as scrutinized as the labor theory of value, whilst being at least as flawed, tells you something about the "value free" nature of modern econ.

<comment><USER9> It... is? The difference is that the labor theory has been thrown out as unsalvageable, whereas expected utility theory is useful enough in some theoretical applications to stick around.

<comment><USER7> The question is whether the grounds upon which it was thrown out (which relate to specific problems) are therefore sufficient for it to be "unsalvageable". Nonetheless, as I already mentioned, the pretension that economics lacks normative content gives the false impression that ideas _must_ be discarded because they are not scientifically valid rather than for ideological reasons.

<comment><USER9> That's the thing, though -- the labor theory isn't just "not scientifically valid." It clearly doesn't describe what _is_ \-- it's not how people value things, and it doesn't make sense as a description of what ought to be.

<comment><USER7> The LTV was never intended as a description of what "ought to be" (in fact, Marx cautions against such use), and it was intended to describe how things are. The idea is that people _do_ value things according to their socially necessary labour content, and that this mechanism works "behind the backs" of all members of society. I'm curious in what way it isn't scientifically valid.

The LTV wasn't thrown out because it fails to describe how things are, because soon enough marginalists realize that the same criticisms actually apply to their own theory. It was thrown out (mostly by Samuelson and his pals) of specific issues: the transformation problem, the generalized commodity exploitation theorem, and by extension the Okishio theorem, all of which have been addressed in the Marxian economic literature.

<comment><USER6> LTV is clearly normative, and it's why people still try to revive it. The idea that factory owners are exploiting their workers has a certain intuitive appeal as a moral proposition.

The LTV wasn't exactly thrown out -- there are situations where marginalism and the LTV exactly coincide -- but it was superseded because outside a narrow sphere it becomes incoherent. The classic example is technological substitution -- if you have two ways of making something, one that is capital- intensive and one that is labor-intensive, then you will probably pick the one that's cheaper. So you can't calculate the labor content of a good independently of prices.

The specific issues you enumerate are issues within Marxist economics in general. The LTV was superseded well before Samuelson's paper on the transformation problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When reading the section on social preference I couldn't help but think of Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process and its pairwise comparisons. Would that not satisfy Arrow's three requirements? It satisfies the first, since it functions regardless of the preferences themselves (though the consistency matrix may suffer); it satisfies the second on its face, since if everyone prefers A over B, then A will be ranked higher under AHP; and it satisfies the third, since _only_ pairwise comparisons serve as inputs to the algorithm.</comment>


Everything on HN front page is about the NSA - <AUTHOR>

I know it's an extremely important situation but doesn't anyone else feel that it is a bit much for the story to take over the entire front page? I completely understand that there is a greatness in sharing different viewpoints on such a big story but again, 20 just seems like too much. <comment><USER2> We'll see what the upvotes say. I personally like seeing stories from various angles on this issue. There is of course a technology interest in these stories, as many HN readers expect to set up businesses (or are already running businesses) that involve using the Internet to communicate with clients.

</comment><comment><USER3> The biggest government spy operation in history is now public knowledge. It's kind of a big deal.

</comment><comment><USER4> Come back in 5 years (assuming HN still exists) and ask yourself if everybody trying to bring awareness to a very alarming trend is a bit overkill.

I'll leave you with a pertinent quote from Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."

</comment><comment><USER5> It's even more annoying when you're not from the US. I know this is a big deal, but really ... 20 top posts?</comment>