I always hated that term, but I don't get how they are a failure. Some won't care greatly for a more-cramped keyboard that you'd get with a 10-inch hybrid, when compared to a 15-inch laptop. Calling "ultrabooks" a failure is to claim that laptops are dead, I think, because such devices are the natural evolution of laptops (thinner and lighter). I mean, other than maybe a Bay Trail T100 or a Surface Pro, I would say that anything else running full Windows 8 fits the profile of an ultrabook. Even an IdeaPad Yoga or an XPS12 fits the bill, they're just called "hybrids" instead. They're lighter and thinner than previous laptops (or the current-gen ones in the cub-$700-or-so sector).
While people might be migrating to hybrids over the rigid, non-convertible "ultrabooks," I'd call only that branding a failure, as we're still talking about the immediate future flocking to hybrids running Bay Trail and Haswell i5s, which still means money in the pockets of Intel.
EDIT: Wow, after reading the rest of that article...the stupidity is palpable. They say that ultrabooks were a failure from the start. They say that hybrids are D.O.A. What do they consider "the future," nothing but Macbooks? I mean, if we're not going for a thinner and lighter device, and we're not going for something with more usable physical modes (tablet and laptop), we either get bigger (but desktops are dead too, right?) or we stay the same.
This article seems really keen on calling Intel doomed and saying that everything they look at is wrong, but I don't see a single thing pointing to WHY hybrids won't work, why Intel is being run "into the ground," or what alternative form factor would actually save them.
While people might be migrating to hybrids over the rigid, non-convertible "ultrabooks," I'd call only that branding a failure, as we're still talking about the immediate future flocking to hybrids running Bay Trail and Haswell i5s, which still means money in the pockets of Intel.
EDIT: Wow, after reading the rest of that article...the stupidity is palpable. They say that ultrabooks were a failure from the start. They say that hybrids are D.O.A. What do they consider "the future," nothing but Macbooks? I mean, if we're not going for a thinner and lighter device, and we're not going for something with more usable physical modes (tablet and laptop), we either get bigger (but desktops are dead too, right?) or we stay the same.
This article seems really keen on calling Intel doomed and saying that everything they look at is wrong, but I don't see a single thing pointing to WHY hybrids won't work, why Intel is being run "into the ground," or what alternative form factor would actually save them.
Last edited: