Back to Article

  • xTRICKYxx - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    We all see it... The 1366x768 resolution. Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    Meh. For $1k or more I'd agree; but these are cheap mass market laptops that are priced well below what everything we'd like would cost.

    At vSeries prices in particular, 1366x768 is the right reason. Prices are only about a step or two above garbage grade; the multitouch layer and 5 hr battery (vs 3; assuming their claimed numbers are reasonable) represent the entirety of the additional price.

    Even the M's are still on the cheap side; below $1k you're going to see significant compromises no matter what; in this case a 720p screen and magnetic HDD.
  • StevoLincolnite - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    Eh. No excuse for poor LCD's even in budget laptops. I expect 1366x768 in a netbook or 10" form factor, not screens 50% larger.
    The BOM wouldn't increase much even if they dropped in something like a 1440x900, 1600x900, 1680x1050 panel... Which allot of older systems use to go with before manufacturers got in bed with 1366x768.
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    Keep in mind that if the BoM goes up $10, Acer most likely loses out on $10 of profit -- it's the Best Buys and other large resellers that make the money on PCs and laptops for the most part (except for when you buy direct from the manufacturer). These "Best Buy specials" are probably being sold for $350 or so, and everything above that price is profit for Best Buy. Reply
  • markiz - Sunday, October 14, 2012 - link

    I don't think resellers get more than 10%. And 10% is the extreme. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Sunday, October 14, 2012 - link

    There are a bunch of middle men in retail outlets, but what I can tell you is that most manufacturers have very, VERY small margins, especially on more budget-oriented stuff. This is why you get bloatware: because it's "free" and has no BoM cost, so if Norton pays Dell $1 to preload their AV Suite, that's $1 of profit.

    I've heard from a few sources that most of the time, the profit margins on budget and mainstream laptops is less than $50. But then, there's $50 for the manufacturer, at least $50 for the reseller, another $50 for shipping and handling services, etc. And unfortunately, they're built to a price point (e.g. Best Buy for $600), so if you add even $5 to the BoM, BB won't pay any more than what they initially wanted.

    It's often the big retail chains that are pushing the race to the bottom, and do you know why? Because that's what people buy when they go to the store: the least expensive offering -- Apple users being the major exception. Ultrabooks were an attempt to "fix" this, but so far most users are rejecting the notion of paying that much for a thin and light laptop.
  • Hrel - Thursday, January 03, 2013 - link

    I know from firsthand experience that Best Buy makes between 1% and 15% at full retail price on laptops. They even lose money on them sometimes. The only way they make any money (for all inents and purposes) is on adding a warranty or "service" like clearing the crapware. As to the BoM, yeah, middle men suck. But if Best Buy just agreed to pay 15 bucks more for every lapop then EVERY laptop would use better screens then better screens would drop in price. Thus allowing Best Buy to pay 15 less again. In that interum they could raise the prices 15-25 bucks, tha'ts very little money and would net significant improvements. The only counter argument to that is "consumers are stupid/ignorant". That's right, so if laptop prices go up across the board and laptops get better across the board they won't know till they own them; but they won't have a choice in the matter. In other words, I'm all for FORCING better quality on people so long as that increase in cost and more importantly profit margins don't balloon out of control. IE Apple. Reply
  • B3an - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    For the price it's acceptable. The rest of the hardware is decent and you get a multi-touch display. All in all i think it's pretty good. Reply
  • Znarkus - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link

    Amazing how they're using that resolution regardless of screen size, 11" to 15". Reply
  • skiboysteve - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    acer look at what every one of your competition is doing.

    you're offering:
    -optical drives when no one wants to lug one around or pay for it in space or dollars
    -low resolution screens
    -thick bodies made of plastic
    -small or non existent flash storage
    -crappy battery life (and where are the connected standby numbers?)
    -no display port

    I realizes your prices are "low" but what is different about these machines now and the ones you sold years ago? nothing. same crap new os and new intel chips.... while everyone else is innovating.
  • Zodiark1593 - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    Love how the tablets are getting good displays, but laptops still get poo for displays. -_- Reply
  • SigmundEXactos - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    Actually, the palliative care nurse taking care of my wife's grandmother has been looking for a light, inexpensive laptop with a DVD drive. She watches shows and movies in her home language (it's one of the less common African ones). Right now her options are either expensive or heavy. So this is not what YOU or I would want, but there is a market. I'm glad there are options. Reply
  • Pneumothorax - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    Given the $25-$50 price delta between the low-res displays and the higher res ones, the manufacturers have no excuses other than laziness or incompetence. The 768p laptops should be reserved only for 12" or smaller displays or $299 laptops. Reply
  • Iketh - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    it's not incompetence or laziness at all... making an additional $25-$50 per laptop sold is huge margins Reply
  • lo2dk - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link


    Forget it Acer...
    Still no progress in display resolution. Stuck in the stoneage, at least give ppl option to pay for better display.
  • retrospooty - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    "at least give ppl option to pay for better display"

    This I really dont get. It used to be fairly std on 16x10 laptops a 1280x800 laptop standard, for $50 extra you got 1440x900 and another $50 would get you 1920x1200. Since moving to 16x9, alot of models stopped offering upgrades. It wasnt until this year it started getting better, except for a few stragglers like Acer.
  • relztes - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    This is what I don't understand. I doubt it even costs that much more for a decent screen. Give me a Trinity APU and use the savings to add a decent screen at the same price. Finally you'd have something to differentiate yourself from the 500 other 15" laptops with 1366x768 screens. I'd happily wait 2 seconds longer to make a zip archive if I could actually have some space to work on the screen. Why does no one do this? Reply
  • Pirks - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    Please go fuck yourself Reply
  • mrdude - Friday, October 12, 2012 - link

    Just what I was waiting for: a heavy, mediocre battery life Ultrabook with nothing to offer but an inflated price tag. Reply
  • retrospooty - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    That's not entirely true... if you have really bad eyesight, the rediculously low res screen is good :-) Reply
  • Mugur - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    Look at HP or Dell... Same situation. Just try to get an ultrabook from them at higher than 768p. Only Asus seems to move in the right direction. Reply
  • jonup - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    The 15 incher weighs in at over 5lb. This is not an ultrabook. and the Vs don't even get flash cache (granted they are labeled laptops). Isn't this the opposit of what ultrabook should be? Reply
  • HisDivineOrder - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    Fer chrissake. We just start to convince OEM's to start using matte again, then we get someone saying, "Yeah, glossy makes more sense because..."

    Zip it. Hush your mouth. Don't ever say a sentence starting with that line ever again.

    No. Nah uh. No way. I want matte displays back and you need to keep your mouth shut if all you can say is "Glossy makes sense because..."

    Now go in the corner, put on the dunce cap, and repeat in your head, "Matte is best," a hundred bajillion times and pray that glossy doesn't kill off all matte displays because of your moment of insanity. :P
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    Please tell me how many tablets and smartphones ship with matte displays. Thanks. Now go sit in a corner yourself. The entire comment is: " least for touch-enabled displays I find glossy makes the most sense (matte surfaces would tend to show wear over time)." Are you telling me that you think matte would be good on a surface where you routinely rub your fingers around? Seriously, think about that for a second more if you still don't get it. Over time, keyboards and palm rests that start out matte start to show "polished" areas where you touch them, and the same would happen for any matte touchscreen.

    Mind you, I think touchscreens on laptops and desktops are going to be a failure -- you don't want to reach out your hand to interact with a large display, not on a regular basis, despite how cool it might look in movies. If you're getting a tablet, touch is obviously the way to go, but for anything that doesn't work with a single hand holding it while the other controls it (e.g. a laptop) forget it. And in that case, of course I'd continue to preach the benefits of matte panels.
  • hemmy - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    And claiming ACER is low balling it while everyone else is throwing in super high res displays on every computer...nobody is doing it. Apple's $1800 MBP comes with a 1440x900 screen, marginally higher than this. (Not to claim they are equally built machines, they aren't).

    That said...should they offer a 1080p version? Absolutely.
  • Galcobar - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    Vizio CT-14. 1600x900 IPS screen with a (slower) mSATA 128GB or 256GB SSD and Ivy Bridge in a 14", 3.4 lb chassis for as low as $599.

    It's being done, at reasonable prices.

    It's not up to the standards of the $1200-$1700 Asus Zenbooks or Samsung Series 9 displays, but now we're talking degrees of quality. Similarly, complaints about the keyboard style or the god-awful buttonless trackpad (which is as common on ultrabooks as complaints about bad screens) are almost expected within the ultrabook segment,

    And to top it off, VIzio's not getting the extra revenue from loading these Thin + Light models with bloatware, so other manufacturers have even less of a profit margin excuse for their display choices.
  • elitistlinuxuser - Saturday, October 13, 2012 - link

    Why are people complaining about resolution why not just buy an Acer s7 with 1080p resolution or something else with higher resolution. Reply
  • buythiscomputer - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link

    Is ACER V5 11.6 inch the best small laptop now ? Reply
  • Hrel - Thursday, January 03, 2013 - link

    First page, spec chart... can't even read any further because they have useless screens. What kind of sense does it make to use a very crappy screen? Especially on a machine that's supposed to provide a "premium" user experience. 1600x900 at 500:1 contrast ratio or higher or don't even bother. I don't care if the screen is 10", that's the minimum acceptable resolution. I'm probably preaching to the choir here on Anandtech, but it simply cannot be stated enough until the stupid laptop manufactuers listen! /rant Reply
  • raok7 - Thursday, September 05, 2013 - link

    This is growing in fast way, i just love the acer product its the technology which is for life time...
    <strong> </br> </br> </br> </br> </br> </br> </br>

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now