More pixels is not always better

Apple, some time ago, introduced their new iMac computer. They made a point of showing five video streams open at the same time (for editing).

That seems a pretty specialized application.

Most folks probably want to read email, write a few documents, and work with a few spreadsheets. And maybe use a few web sites. Some folks will edit sound, some will edit video. A few of those may edit two video streams at the same time.

The number of people editing five video streams at the same time is a tiny fraction of the total number of users (of any brand of computer).

We should keep in mind that pixels are not free. The exist. They have to be manipulated. Our computers need the circuitry to drive the pixels, and the RAM to hold values for the pixels. That means more memory circuits, and power to drive those circuits. That power (in a laptop) comes from the battery, and more pixels and more circuits drawing current means a shorter battery life.

(The extra power may be small -- very small -- and it may be that we can save power by reducing screen brightness.)

The design of a computer is a series of trade-offs between capabilities, size, power, and cost. A computer with a very small physical size (such as the Apple Watch) can perform a number of tasks, but it will have a small display and a limited amount of memory. A capable computer with a powerful processor and lots of memory will require more space and a higher cost.

When Apple or any manufacturer designs a computer, they decide on various factors and make various trade-offs. Apple, with their iMac, has selected certain points on the cost/capability curve. Those decisions affect every purchaser of an iMac. A user who wants to edit five video streams at once may appreciate the large number of pixels and the powerful graphics processor. A different user, who has desires more mundane, won't use the video capabilities to their fullest extent, but has to pay for them anyway.

Of course, this logic applies to any consumer good, from computers to televisions, from washing machines to automobiles.

Apple knows this. Apple knows that the higher cost of the iMac will convince some people to buy other computers (some Apple, some other brands). Therefore, Apple is willing to give up those customers, in exchange for the bragging that was in their advertisement. They must think that the advertisement was the better deal.

I'm not convinced. While I have several Apple computers, I'm not looking to buy an new iMac (or a new Macbook, or a new Mac) in the near future. I am instead considering Microsoft's new Surface, either the tablet or the laptop version. Because more pixels is not always better.