During the debut of its new line of thin, lightweight very portable laptops on Wednesday, Asustek Computer chief executive Jerry Shen (沈振來) spent more than 30 minutes on stage trying to persuade reporters in Taipei that the company’s new Zenbook series outperforms its rivals, such as Apple’s MacBook Air. While maintaining the same ultrathin profile as its rivals, Shen said the Zenbook boasts longer battery life and an instant on feature.
However, his dull presentation and monotonous tone almost sent the audience to sleep. The deafening claps that came during the launch of the firm’s Eee PC netbook in 2007 were not heard this time. No wows and no shouts of excitement were heard either, and the press room was so quiet you could hear a pin drop.
The silence speaks volumes about the difficulties that lie ahead for ultrabooks — the name Intel has bestowed on this new breed of notebooks.
Taipei-based market researcher Trendforce Technology forecasts ultrabooks will account for 2 percent of overall notebook computer shipments this year and expects them to grow to 10 percent next year. This pales in comparison with Intel’s ambitious target of a 40 percent market share next year.
With 20 years of experience in the personal computer (PC) industry, Asustek is undoubtedly capable of offering a notebook computer that performs well. However, it did not make any mention of what content, music, video or entertainment services would be available on the Zenbook series. Cloud-computing services received no mention at all.
Granted, Asustek is just selling the hardware, but its new offering fails to deliver the stylistic design that it needs if it really wants to challenge Apple.
Asustek represents a microcosm of the PC industry, holding on tightly to the myth of prioritizing performance over everything else.
This mindset is what caused the lack of wow during Asustek’s launch. People were left not knowing what, if anything, new things they would be able to do with this machine or how it could make their lives better. Technology excites people when it offers clearly defined improvements to life.
It is true that PC companies, including Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Acer, are not as good at offering software and must-have content as their competitors Google and Amazon. PC companies are too slow to respond to changes and they are not identifying industry trends and boosting their abilities to provide software services.
PC firms tend to remain comfortable and conservative, happy to make slim profits by selling hardware. They do not even bother to design their own products. That is left to contract PC makers — and the result is that rival products often turn out looking the same.
As Google and Amazon aggressively expand their cloud services to the hardware arena through mergers, acquisitions and strategic partnerships with hardware suppliers, PC companies can no longer make easy profits.
Asustek’s net profit margin was 5.05 percent in the first half of this year, while Acer fell to minus 2.24 percent. HP, the world’s biggest PC company, is considering selling its PC division.
PC companies, Taiwanese brands in particular, should heed the warning signs and quickly devise countermeasures because Wintel’s (Microsoft and Intel) dominance is showing major cracks. They can start by asking: Are ultrabooks a new breed of PC that can really appeal to consumers? Or are they just a last ditch effort by PC firms likely to crumple in the face of competition from tablets and smartphones?
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS