Skip to main content

Computer Screen Size, Revisited

Late last year, I wrote that laptop screen size is not itself a requirement, but that the real requirements are on usability and productivity when using the computer. A large screen size is one of the most effective ways of enhancing such usability and productivity. I have always favored laptops with large screen sizes for this reason.

Now, Apple has the results of a study comparing productivity when using its 30-inch external monitor versus using a smaller 17-inch monitor. Among the major conclusions:
  • Computer displays are a widely overlooked productivity factor of the personal computer, and they can contribute significantly to productivity, efficiency, and overall throughput.
  • Productivity and efficiency gains documented in these productivity measures are present in not only digital imaging and design applications, but also in office applications as well as in personal productivity of the computing environment.
  • A larger display area often results in new productivity strategies that make best use of the display in ways that one cannot easily imagine when working on a smaller display.
What is significant about these findings? The main significance is in its exposing how the emphasis on faster processors is misplaced. Instead of just worrying about feature specs, your product manager should be focusing on what really impacts users.

Comments

bob said…
What can we learn? That Apple wisely realized that you can't show faster CPU as easily as you can show Bigger Screen. By quoting "research" that purports to prove the productivity advantages of a large screen, they try to associate business benefit to something that will help them drive the ASP of the iMac line up and up.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

What Product Managers Can Learn from the Apple iPod

The Story When Apple unveiled its iPod digital music player back in October 2001, I dismissed it as a  parity product . I already owned the Cowon iAUDIO CW100 MP3 player, loaded with my favorite tunes. There was Apple, generating great hype over the iPod as if it were a breakthrough product. The idea of a portable digital music player was nothing new. The first mass-produced MP3 players came out in 1998. In late 2001, the concept may have been new to a lot of Apple customers, but it wasn't new to me. I proudly showed my MP3 player to friends when they gushed about the iPod. Thus Apple's iPod was not an innovative product in and of itself. Years later, however, I realized the significance of ecosystem of which the iPod was a part. Apple had released iTunes (with technology purchased from  SoundJam MP ) and created the iTunes Store for finding and downloading music. Unlike Napster , it was a safe and legal way of distributing and acquiring music. The prior way of playing

Stop Validating and Start Falsifying

The product management and startup worlds are buzzing about the importance of "validation". In this entry, I'll explain how this idea originated and why it's leading organizations astray. Why Validate? In lean startup circles, you constantly hear about "validated learning" and "validating" product ideas: The assumption is that you have a great product idea and seek validation from customers before expending vast resources to build and bring it to market. Indeed, it makes sense to transcend conventional approaches to making product decisions . Intuition, sales anecdotes, feature requests from customers, backward industry thinking, and spreadsheets don't form the basis for sound product decisions. Incorporating lean startup concepts , and a more scientific approach to learning markets, is undoubtedly a sounder approach. Moreover, in larger organizations, sometimes further in the product life-cycle, everyone seems to have an opinio