I think Microsoft is actually ahead of the curve here, and the tablets of the near-future will be more like the Surface Pro than the iPad. Your grandma can use hers to check e-mail and run pre-screened apps from an app store, while you can use yours to run Visual Studio or Photoshop. With full computing power in tablets, they could supplant not just Android/iOS but laptops, ultrabooks, netbooks and desktop towers.

Even with the keyboard attached it weighs less than a macbook air.

The main issue is that the vast majority simply don't need all that much computing power, it was the lack of alternatives to the PC form factor that kept CPU power, prices and Intel's profit margins inflated.

I don't doubt that there will be a market for powerful tablets. But it's a small market; the grandmas of this world won't be buying them any more than they used to buy powerful workstations.

Geeks tend to forget that a vast portion of the population just needs a web browser, a handful of popular games, chat, and email.

With everyone hopping on the Facebook train, it's not even clear that chat/email is really that required anymore.

Show me one table at $200 that does everything a grandma would want.

> The main issue is that the vast majority simply don't need all that much computing power

That's just wild speculation that needs a reference, especially since the history of PC proves otherwise.

That time is long gone. As a developer, laptops have been fast enough for my purposes since around 2000.

Coding Horror, 2010:

    CPUs? All stupid fast at any price, with more cores 
    and gigahertz than you'll ever need unless you're one 
    of those freaks who does nothing but raytracing and 
    video transcoding all day long.

Excluding servers and scientific computing, the only groups I know of that still want more power are hardcore gamers and video editors. Even for these, the bottleneck is frequently somewhere else than the CPU.

I think my mother and sisters represent mainstream computing better than I do: The check mail, watch YouTube videos and look at pictures of the family. There's nothing there that requires more computing power than what tablets have today.

The Google Nexus 7 is $200. It has enough computing power for what most of my family uses computers for. It still has other limitations that may make it unsuitable as a wholesale PC replacement - say ports for plugging in a large monitor, options for printing, drivers for various USB devices - but those limitations do not primarily call for a faster CPU.

If you disagree, I'd be curious to know where you see a mass market for significantly more CPU power than what we expect from the natural evolution of ARM.

Intel is going to have a hard time keeping high profit margins on lower cost chips. If any company can handle it though they should be able to.

So.. everything?

If anything it tells me even more that Intel is looking to gradually morph the ultrabook brand to mean slim, powerful hybrid/convertible as the technology makes it possible. ie: they're trying to evolve the notebook computer in such a way that it encrouches on the 'tablet market', just as tablets have made their way into the pc market...

More significantly: simply because the ultrabook exists, the other 'normal/cheap' laptops are getting slimmer, cheaper and all-round better.

I think the mac/windows drama is still on on -- with the ipad and devices like it marketed to consumers an entertainment device, and Wintel keeping the productivity market.

Right now, they only lack the humility to apply that to low-cost energy saving chips. I'm sure lost profits will apply the necessary pressure.