Here is my comment on their desktop computer: it has two pieces, one with most of the electronics plus a monitor, the other with an AC-to-DC converter plus a sub-woofer. I much prefer the more conventional division of duties in which one piece is a monitor, the other piece has a power supply and most of the electronics and the interface between the 2 pieces is some standard protocol like DVI-D, HDMI or DisplayPort.
I notice that their desktop computer uses a mobile CPU, which has advantages and disadvantages. One of the biggest advantages is portability, which is useful even in a "desktop" computer like the Mac mini. Specifically, the reduction in the demands on the cooling system allows the electronics and the case containing the electronics to be small and light. (A 2011 Mac mini or the recently-announced Chromebox for example weighs only 2.7 pounds including the AC adapter which in both cases is built-in.) But if you integrate the mobile CPU with a monitor, you lose the ability to unplug the box with the CPU from your monitor, carry it around and plug it into some other monitor or TV (which is something I do a lot with my Mac mini).
Worthy of note is the fact that the original Intel iMacs and Mac Minis shipped with Mobile processors (Intel Core/Core 2 TXXX rather than EXXX), for the reasons you mention.
Although some iMacs and maybe all iMacs now use desktop-class processors, all Mac minis still have mobile processors. (35 W TDP for the processors in the $599 and the $799 2011 models; 45 W TDP for the CPU in the 2011 Mac mini server.) Otherwise they couldn't be so small and light without overheating!
There are tradeoffs when you create abstraction layers. For instance, Apple's new ad talked about larger batteries they fitted by not making batteries easily replaceable - there were additional housing and adapters - which all took up room. This has been a general trend over many years.
Because you genuinely believe it would be a good business decision, or because it would be cool?
Also which build, of which distro, with which desktop? The problem is there aren't really Linux fans, there are Ubuntu fans and Redhat fans and Mint fans and, etc. If Mint is your thing, with Ubuntu as acceptable, a Redhat desktop probably isn't going to be interesting to you, and so on.
Linux being a kernel, not an operating system, is a very real issue for a company like this. Each is a tiny little fragment of the Desktop Linux market, which is a tiny little fragment of the overall desktop market. Fragmentation of fragmentation.
It would probably be a good business decision. Their costs for offering a Linux version would be very low if they choose their hardware well. The cost would be just testing and sending an additional image to a manufacturer.
They would get instant recognition and instant free press. Marketing is one of the highest costs for companies like these. For example, I am willing to bet that the article we are discussing now cost Vizio good money (probably paid through a PR firm).
But if they offer the only premium laptop with Linux on it, they would get free coverage in all Linux media and most tech media.
So yes, there is a good business case for it. The big wild card about the business case is Microsoft. Microsoft, will probably make their lives really hard if they do offer Linux. This would probably be anti-competitive behavior with doubtful legality but would likely happen nevertheless. But other than potential Microsoft meddling, I think there is a good business case for it.
"Vizio is one of the best-kept secrets in consumer technology. The tiny Southern California company consistently sells the most HDTVs in America, but it's a sure bet that you know virtually nothing about it. Hell, most people don't even know Vizio is an American company, even though all but three of its 417 employees work in the US. That's sort of what happens when you run virtually no advertising outside of sponsoring a few major events like the Rose Bowl, hold no press conferences outside of CES, and build the foundation of your empire by selling low-cost TVs at Walmart. Yet Vizio's customers keep coming back, and bringing others: a combination of low prices, increasing quality, and solid customer support is pretty hard to resist."
Vizio sells their products in walmart for good prices and relies on word of mouth. How many average walmart shoppers even know what linux is? It might get them some free press but it's probably not the press they need. Personally I'd love to be able to get the thing $100 cheaper without the windows license, but what about the time they have to spend testing and developing drivers/etc will that even out the cost? What about the extra support they'll have to provide for Joe Walmartshopper trying to install word on his brand new machine he just dropped $800 on? What kind of press will it generate when they tell him, that no he can't use outlook?
As much as I'd love to see linux on these things it's not a good business decision. Company's like dell massive resources with a huge product like so they can have a linux offering, but for a company like this it just doesn't make sense.
Yes, I read the article. What is your point? Sponsoring the Rose Bowl is very expensive so they definitely have an advertising budget.
Also, these laptops, as opposed to the TVs, are not the low cost option. So they will have to have another strategy for selling them. For premium laptops that will definitely involve advertising.
How would they deal with support? Note how the article mentions that Microsoft is providing second level support for this.
I don't believe any of the Linux companies have provided desktop support for the masses. And support wouldn't be just for the OS, but the whole experience - printers, scanners, things that plug in in various ways, networking, ISP connections - everything. Note that Microsoft don't have to deal with those things - the burden is on a printer manufacturer to tell the user how to make it work with Windows, but for Linux the burden would be on the distro.
The users would also be new to Linux which would incur a greater support load. Turned around, if you worked for a major Linux distro and Vizio approached you for a desktop support contract, how much would you charge per user and how many staff would you need? Would it be economically viable?
I had heard of Vizio before but never held them in the same league as the Samsungs or LGs of the TV industry. I appreciate how they seem to be fighting against the flow to do things differently. Instead of cramming extra software and stickers onto their product Vizio chose to sterilize, and instead of supporting legacy connectors and optical disk drives Vizio chose to modernize.
It's almost as if they're adapting Apple minimalist aesthetics for Windows machines. Which is mind-boggling that no other PC manufacturer has tried the same in the last few years.
Their quasi-mantra of "focus" is also very reminiscent of Apple's way of thinking. I have 100% more respect for them than I did this morning, that's for sure.
I own a couple of Samsung products and a couple of Vizio products. Vizio isn't in the same league as Samsung. They are typically bringing year old tech to consumers that are more budget constrained. If you know what you are getting they are certainly not bad though. I don't care for their choice of software (yahoo tv widgets) on the smart tvs as it's clunky and crashes. I also think they need to rethink their remote controls. The buttons require a lot of force and make an annoying clicking sound when pressed. I'm skeptical they will get the keyboard and trackpad on their laptops right given their software and remote issues on the tvs.
For anyone else who hates stickers as much as you and I do, I found the perfect tool for removing them: the plastic toothpick from a Swiss Army knife.
The toothpick has a very flat tip that will go right under the corner of a sticker and let you lift the corner - and then the rest of the sticker will pull away easily. At the same time, the toothpick is soft enough that it won't scratch whatever surface the sticker is on.
Those look really nice. Seems that they understand what the mainstream market want: something that look nice, work nice, are durable and don't cost too much.
Too bad that they are using a mobile gpu for their desktop computer, and that it "just" have a 1080p resolution instead of something bigger (1440p or 1600p would be perfect for me).
I don't think Vizio is trying to copy Apple, but it's a bit disappointing that their machines also have a similar aluminum unibody style. There's no other way to express "striking but not cluttered"?
