Laptops Forum·2,707 discussions

Failure of both Laptop companies and reviewers to get 3:2 laptops offered

Tags: Tablets

First time ever on a computer forum, but most important laptop question ever: Why have 3:2 laptops been so slow in coming and the laptop review community so negligent, even RECKLESS, to not press for them earlier?

Topic

Was this a conspiracy of cynicism or stupidity?

In reply to Failure of both Laptop companies and reviewers to get 3:2 laptops offered

The whole industry assumed we’re mostly lazy idiots who want to spend most of our time watching movies and not doing anything creative or productive. 16:9 is for movies and everybody knows it. Now some premium models are introduced for $$$ just for being 3:2, as if it’s some great innovation. These should have been offered all along at every price point, and reviewers (all of them!!!) are FAILURES for going along with steering consumers willy-nilly to 16:9. The reviewers themselves should have been advocating for the public, against this dumbing down of computer use to de-emphasize a more active-brain-friendly (reading, writing, creating) 3:2. Now the only good 3:2 are overpriced because they’re presented as exotic/premium formats. I’ve followed lots of the important reviewers on YouTube and CNET, and they’re ALL GUILTY of colluding with manufacturers to keep us on 16:9, what I’ll call: CPR: COUCH POTATO RATIO. My name is Andrew Maltz and I officially hereby copyright that term, as my official accusation on the communities involved. 16:9 is CPR, COUCH POTATO RATIO, and manufactures AND reviewers ALIKE are GUILTY of this assault on the general population. We are a far dumber world for this situation, and civilization would be far more advanced had this systemic malfeasance (whether a lapse or deliberate) not occurred. I wish they or somebody would answer about what I actually consider a crime.

Re: laptop

In reply to Failure of both Laptop companies and reviewers to get 3:2 laptops offered

A laptop with a 3:2 screen is either less wide (which means a smaller keyboard, unpractical for productive work) or higher (which might make the keyboard unpractically deep).

Personally I like the 16:9 format, because (when using it with a external keyboard and external monitor) it easily allows 2 8:9 (halve) screens, which often is handy. I hardly use my laptop as a laptop.
And, in these COVID-times, more people work home, using such a monitor.

Anyway, it’s less bought because it’s more expensive, and probably since it’s more expensive it’s less bought. Kind of a catch-22.
However, for a business laptop the price is not an issue. Businesses can easily pay for it if they (or their employees) prefer it, especially if it makes for a higher productivity. Apparently, they don’t ask for it.

It’s a demand-supply issue. I think there is not enough demand for such a laptop to justify large scale production.

Thanks for the responses, but sticking to my guns…

In reply to Re: laptop

You say 16:9 is great by you, because you use an external monitor anyway, instead of the screen??????????????

I’m not going to analyze what’s weird about that reasoning. Shouldn’t the test of a good screen be that the user isn’t made to prefer connecting to another???????

But as to supply and demand, 2020 saw new models of Acer Swift, Acer Spin, and HP Spectre, and several other relatively high end laptops introduced with 3:2, and ALL ALL ALL ALL the reviews are TOUTING this as a PREMIUM feature based on the improved working space that for most applications (pretty much everything except streaming movies) is much better at 3:2 ratio, and while you say 16:9 is good for side-by-side viewing of 2 pages, doesn’t it make sense that that applies for a 15.6” screen, not a 13.3 or 13.5 or 14? And moreover, in tablet mode, doesn’t something approximating 8.5 x 11 make OBVIOUS sense???

Why are these 3:2 convertibles being marketed as PREMIUM, and significant upgrades over 16:9, and REVIEWED as such, if as you say most people prefer 16:9?

I submit that for some reason manufacturers and reviewers were for some reason trying to keep everybody focused on 16:9. Maybe it was better business for everybody, and then businesses (which you say don’t really care about price) could be charged a premium for 3:2. Where does that leave non-business customers who wanted 3:2. WAS ANYBODY ADVOCATING FOR THEM? Certainly not reviewers!!!!! Did reviewers care that we were being forcibly steered toward CPR: COUCH POTATO RATIO?

I bet there have been a great, great, great many like me who all along wanted taller screens in 13-14” range, i.e., 3:2. Their/our voices have been ignored.

Journalists (reviewers) in my view have a duty to advocate for what is truly best for consumers and society as a whole. This can mean only 2 things in this matter: more choice at all price points, and not trying to force consumers into a video-streaming couch potato format to encourage a movie-focused orientation.

Here and there on the Internet you find similar complaints about the gigantically lopsided emphasis on 16:9. Reviewers in their videos acknowledge there have been complaints about this. So why 99% ignored till now, and reviewers admitting the appeal is obvious by clearly celebrating the 3:2? Why are these being discussed/offered as premium features, upgrades from previous models??

I think it reflects an assumption poorer customers are mostly focused on watching movies…

I think Kees is onto something.

In reply to Failure of both Laptop companies and reviewers to get 3:2 laptops offered

“It’s a demand-supply issue. I think there is not enough demand for such a laptop to justify large scale production.”

As to this being a crime, that’s quite a stretch.

And as to the “supply and demand” perspective…

In reply to I think Kees is onto something.

While businesses are mostly in business to make a profit, I suppose (there’s also creativity and making a great product, and advancing civilization but technology that improves our lives and culture, not just by promoting Couch Potato video consumerism), the journalistic community has a duty to acknowledge and amplify those voices wanting more out of their computers than passively consuming millions of videos in CPR format. They should be advocating for laptop designs that encourage a more ACTIVE and CREATIVE engagement with our devices, which **everybody** knows means 3:2, not 16:9 = CPR.

Yes, there is supply and demand, profit motive. But at least to some extent even computer manufacturers, and **absolutely most especially** the journalistic community, must be able to think beyond those terms, and look at the bigger picture. What kind of civilization do we want to be: a small creative class actively creating on their computers, while the vast majority are encouraged to passively consume videos all day? I’m fairly certain having 95% of laptops in the 16:9 format is to promote the latter pattern, with an unacceptable collusion between manufacturers and reviewers in that arrangement.

Everything, by the way, can’t be purely for money, and “supply and demand” answer and dictate everything.

What’s next?

In reply to And as to the “supply and demand” perspective…

That last word above was “crime.” Maybe you can make a case, head to a court of law as you have tried other venues.

The more you look into this area (LCD manufacturing) the more you see the enormity of costs for the machines to make LCDs. The computer industry rarely makes displays just for their own computers. Companies hitch a ride on consumer TV production and costs are vastly reduced.

Sure, you could produce what you want but would the product sell for similar to the prices for 16:9 laptops and display? My answer is no since the laws (not legal based but laws of commerce and production) mean these would be a premium of about 10 times the cost of a run of the mill display.

Next I would read you and others complaining of the cost of 4:3 laptops and displays.

-> Best to find a few 4:3 old displays on Ebay and get what you want while you can.

And as to the “supply and demand” perspective…

In reply to I think Kees is onto something.

While businesses are mostly in business to make a profit, I suppose (there’s also creativity and making a great product, and advancing civilization but technology that improves our lives and culture, not just by promoting Couch Potato video consumerism), the journalistic community has a duty to acknowledge and amplify those voices wanting more out of their computers than passively consuming millions of videos in CPR format. They should be advocating for laptop designs that encourage a more ACTIVE and CREATIVE engagement with our devices, which **everybody** knows means 3:2, not 16:9 = CPR.

Yes, there is supply and demand, profit motive. But at least to some extent even computer manufacturers, and **absolutely most especially** the journalistic community, must be able to think beyond those terms, and look at the bigger picture. What kind of civilization do we want to be: a small creative class actively creating on their computers, while the vast majority are encouraged to passively consume videos all day? I’m fairly certain having 95% of laptops in the 16:9 format is to promote the latter arrangement, with an unacceptable collusion between manufacturers and reviewers in that arrangement.

Everything, by the way, can’t be purely for money, and “supply and demand” answer and dictate everything.

[Author]

Replies