Why are "portable" and "ultra-portable" laptops so expensive?

Mr.Clark · 8 Jan 2008 at 14:19

Is it just because they know people will pay more for the convenience?

A quick browse of some laptops show that the ones with 13" and below screen sizes are more expensive and lower specced than their 15.4" (and in some cases, 17") counterparts.

They'll usually be under 2GHz with 1GB RAM and about a 100GB hard disk, compared to the larger ones that'll be 2.2GHz, 2GB RAM and 120-160GB hard drives.

Since the screen is smaller, they should be cheaper to make, so why the insane pricing?

Indy500 · 8 Jan 2008 at 14:21

Maybe because of the smaller form factor and costs of using a more efficient battery?

TheVoice · 8 Jan 2008 at 14:23

Components need to be squeezed into a smaller space, I imagine. Most people want and therefore buy 15" notebooks, and so these machines (including their components) fall to a reasonable cost because so many will be sold, which in turn makes them cheaper (and most popular).

beermonster · 8 Jan 2008 at 14:48

i think TheVoice hit the nail on the head, its not really about the amount of physical material your getting that doesnt factor into it. 17" laptops were quite pricey a few years ago, now they're around £399 because sales has increased and brought the costs down, Philips do some pretty good spec sub notebooks but i wouldnt put them into the ultra thin catergory like some Sony's which can be over £1k

fish99 · 8 Jan 2008 at 15:38

Also they sell less so are made in smaller volumes, which equals a higher price.

Guru · 9 Jan 2008 at 00:24

should my 12.1" compaq evo n400c be considered ultra-portable when I list it on the bay?

CoreRipOffDuo · 9 Jan 2008 at 01:29

Yeah you could get away with that.

Anything sub 13" is ultra portable. 15-17" is mainstream, and 20" is niche.

Small laptops need smaller parts, which are harder to manufacture, so the price is higher.