Acer Switch 7

So it's about as much as the Surface Pro 4 has.
(If those numbers are correct.)

Dissapointing for the size, but if the cooling system is as good as I think, it's a tradeoff I am willing to make to have a noise free device.

I don't understand, what this "holding company" stuff means. Can someone enlighten me?

 

What Acer is proposing to do is break up its various business lines (not sure how many divisions) into separate entities with the Acer "name" owning the stock of these separate entities - ultimately they end up selling those units off piecemeal to other companies - thus a good chance that long term stability will disappear. As separate units, they may not have the resources to put into research and development to improve their lines and update software, drivers, and other upgrades of existing computers.

 

They needed the place for the pen and i think the board is a little bigger because of the gpu

I allready bought the switch 5 the switch 7 is to big and to expensive




Gesendet von meinem SM-G935F mit Tapatalk

 

I would have bought the Switch 5, if it had a WACOM EMR Digitizer instead of ****ty Ntrig. :/

 

I would not be too quick to draw conclusions as to what Acer will be doing, why, and what impact it will have on the business units and owners of its products. Couple of things:

1) There was just a single source about the intent to break up the units and spin them off into public entities. Though privately held, Acer is a $8 billion company and a significant player in a much watched sector; until a credible business source reports and opines about this, I would assume nothing.

2) Typically companies do things like this to extract value out of its assets and, also at times, to get the owners liquidity for their stock in the company. Bloomberg has very little to say about Acer and I assume they are very closely held. Whoever owns the stock - founding family, private equity investors, etc, these kinds of moves are made so that shares will be publicly traded and thus can be converted to cash and owners can diversify their personal portfolios into other investments. On the other hand, this financial strategy can also be a way to raise capital for the business, thus strengthening it to invest more in R&D, quality control, customer support, etc.

3) This is not necessarily bad for the company nor does it necessarily bode ill for its future. If the one article (sourced in many who-cares web news services) has any truth, Acer's current ownership will retain control over the independent publicly traded business units. As a practical matter, the management and board may be unchanged and the company may still run just as it is presently. (A little startup once known as "Google" did this in creating "Alphabet" the holding company that owns Google and several other business units, though it did not spin each unit off publicly to investors.) I am skeptical that Acer would split up in the manner characterized in that one story. To the extent that the brand, it's R&D and manufacturing resources are shared among the business units, they have to remained under central management control or investors will not be interested in buying the shares they would allegedly float in IPOs.

(I know a little bit about this stuff, kinda as in it's been my profession for 35 years. Not that good at it, or I would be much richer, but I do know of what I speak!)

By the way, until this shakes out, I agree with Bronsky's implication: probably not smart to spend serious money on an Acer product. Then again, though Bronsky himself is the company's proudest former customer, I have not generally put Acer products high on my recommended list, even when their specs for the $ looked good. But that's just my bias.

 

Obviously, if I had any investment acumen I wouldn't be here trading jabs with you jokers around here, but would be sitting on the beach cashing dividend checks.

With that confession, I still feel like this is not a good move for users - when you start thinking in terms of "get the owners liquidity for their stock" and "shares will be publicly traded and thus can be converted to cash and owners can diversify their personal portfolios into other investments" are code phrases for take the money and run. But you are right Jeff - it's a thin lead and poorly sourced. Guess I'm just showing my second tier bias about Acer.

 

Acer has struggled since it and Asus emerged from under IBM and HP. The company made a lot of money from cheap, plastic notebooks and netbooks. But, every once in a while, the company's engineers would hit a home run with a model. There was probably no better 11.6" subnotebook than the Aspire 1420 and 1820. Of course, there was the timelineX. Then the R7 and now the Switch 7. Having lived through 30 years of mergers, employee led buyouts and the like, I've seen a lot of companies falter in the process. Sony, Toshiba and probably Fujitsu come to mind. It just makes me nervous and tends to make me look elsewhere.

 

So, where do I go next to find you guys?!

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

I know where you'll find me: HP Zbook X2.

I just gotta figure out if I can live with 16:9.

 

Even with the new HP Spectre x360 15" (16:9), HP Zbook X2 (16:9, ugly, too large?), Surface Book 2 (no TB3, too expensive) in mind I'm still sold on the Acer Switch 7.

The Switch 7 is still not perfect however, 512 GB SSD is to small, resolution could be a bit higher and screen quality needs to be seen (as well as cooling/performance). There's some time left until next year, maybe I/we will see something even better