Netbooks are still all the rage these days, but according to Intel, this is going to change soon. The company has stated that they first thought that netbooks, who are almost exclusively powered by Intel chips, would be for emerging markets, but as it turns out, they are especially popular in Europe and North America. Intel claims that while these devices are “fine for an hour”, they are not something for day to day use. And AMD? They are ignoring the market altogether.
Intel’s vice president in the sales and marketing group, Stu Penn, was quite clear. “We originally thought Netbooks would be for emerging markets and younger kids, and there is some of that. It turns out the bulk of the Netbooks sold today are Western Europe, North America, and for people who just want to grab and go with a notebook. We view the Netbook as mostly incremental to our total available market,” Pen explained, “If you’ve ever used a Netbook and used a 10-inch screen size-it’s fine for an hour. It’s not something you’re going to use day in and day out.”
I’m not sure if netbook owners agree with this sentiment. I’m using my netbook as my only notebook right now, and I’m not having any problems at all. Sure, you can’t play any serious games on it, but for everything else, Intel’s Atom chip is a very capable piece of machinery. The screen certainly could be an issue, but at 1024×600, I’m not having any problems either. However, as always, your mileage may vary.
In the meantime, AMD is steering clear of the netbook market altogether. A few weeks ago, AMD Chief Executive Dirk Meyer said “We’re ignoring the Netbook phenomenon-just thinking about PC form factors above that form factor.” AMD does have chips coming out that could power netbooks, but they’re not aiming for it. The company has stated that they are more interested in powering devices more akin to Apple’s MacBook Air – thinner, but with larger displays than normal netbooks and with full-sized keyboards.
“We’re going to offer the Congo and Yukon platforms as an alternative (to processors and chipsets for Netbooks). There are a fair number of people that are not satisfied with the experience they’re getting on these [netbook] platforms,” explained Bahr Mahony, AMD’s director of notebook product marketing. He added that the high return rates for netbooks in Europe underline customer dissatisfaction.
No problem, I’m waiting for the Gdium with a loongson processor to be ready in December. x86 is a dead end anyway…
x86 is dead? What planet are you on? x86 is bigger than ever. Even if some amazing breakthrough processor came out today it would be at least ten years before x86 dies and Loongson does not seem to be a breakthrough. If you’re been around long enough you’d know that x86 was supposed to be killed several times by Mips, PPC and others. It never happened.
as the above said, x86 is here to stay, not even intel could get rid of x86 (Itanium).
Ive heard that even some mobile phone companys will move over to x86 when it becomes a little leaner with power.
The netbook arena is a tight market because of the costs of the units, which of course is it’s biggest seller. It’s natural therefore that some companies don’t want to get into it. AMD currently has it’s work cut out remaining competitive with intel in the desktop and server market, let alone trying to enter another smaller niche market.
Edited 2008-11-28 13:19 UTC
I don’t know if I’d call netbooks a “niche” market. They brought ASUS from a back end supplier up to a household brand, and also vaulted acer up to the top of notebook sales (if you include netbooks in there).
I for one believe that the netbook craze is reflective of a general trend…one away from increasingly higher powered, higher heat, higher cost hogs to cheaper, lower powered commodity appliances. Whoever truly figures out this appliance market has the potential power to make themselves the next household seller. If AMD & Intel don’t want to lead in this market then I’m sure there are others who can get there….I have the ARM folks in mind, who I really believe should have tried this market a long time ago.
The netbooks will to to the notebooks what the x86 PC did to the SGI IRIX workstations.
They will be increasing in calculation power while staying low on price and power consumption.
It will take its time, but the netbooks will continuously eat into the lower end notebook market.
I don’t think so. The notebook form factor is much better suited to do actual work during travel than the netbook. I even have an anecdote relating to Intel’s and AMD’s claim: I recently had to fall back on a company 12″ Dell Latitude 430 (or something) for a business trip, because my 14″ FSC Lifebook 6510 died unexpectedly. I enjoyed the better portability of the Dell, but working during the 4 hour train ride was almost impossible. After about an hour I gave up and tried to surf the net. Not fun, either. So I just shut it down and read a book.
Sorry, I didn’t say x86 was dead.
That’s a trick of the english language. “dead end” does not mean “dead”, it is a whole different concept. It just means “no road through”, it has nothing to do with “dead”…
In most other languages, there is a different word for those two concepts. for instance, in french, they say “impasse” for “dead end” and “mort” for “dead”. the english language is just too poor so it reuses the same word with very different meaning just by adding another word. That is confusing, but we have to live with it.
Impasse is a word that works just as well in English, but then you still will always have the knee jerk responses.
Either way, I agree with you. I have never liked the x86 architecture, but have accepted the fact also that the better technologies hardly ever win out.
Just look at the Windows vs. Every other OS out there. Windows did not win out because of being the better technological operating system. It won out because of being bundled with every PC since it was available. Right place at the right time. I could only imagine if back then the Mac OS or Amiga Workbench had ran on x86 hardware and had been compatible with all the applications…
Anyhow, all of this is off topic. It’s a shame that (as crappy as they were) Cyrix and the others that used to make x86 processors all died out, except AMD and Intel. I guess Via is out there in there small niche. But really, we need more competition in every processor slice so that we as consumers will get more benefits.
It’s called compounding and it’s an extremely effective way of building new words and phrases. Sorry you don’t get it.
Actually, dead end means that there is no progress pass the current location. as in the road comes to a dead end. I see no signs that x86 is at a dead end, impasse, whatever. x86 has effectively taken over the PC, workstation, server, HPC and Mac markets, and is moving into netbooks and smartphones. that’s not a dead end, that’s a total and utter domination of multiple markets.
How anybody can claim that x86 has hit a dead end is beyond me.
The Windows PC and mac OS X markets are dead ends.
It has nothing to do with the market, it’s technical.
Don’t worry, Microsoft, Apple and Intel will continue to make billions of dollars from their crap. That doesn’t mean they will move us forward. You confuse what you call the market with progress.
“It’s technical?” What the hell does that mean? Yes, Microsoft and Apple will continue to make money, with or without you, mostly the latter. What’s your point? Are you trying to tell the world that you’re a lonely and unhappy person, or are you simply championing stupidty? In either case, mission accomplished.
Edited 2008-12-01 09:35 UTC
I say x86 is a technical dead end. I don’t doubt that they are sold by the billions on the PC market and stuff. I never said Intel will go down or loose money. I just said that x86 is not the way forward.
Why do you think intel and others tried to kill it?
People will continue to buy them, by billions. But what is the way forward for x86 seriously?
Anyway, whatever I say there is a communication problem that makes it so that you just can’t get me. You believe x86 is the way forward, no matter how crippled it is because the “market” says so. And if someone says something else, you feel attacked and insulted.
so moving to 64bit isn’t moving forward? Virtualization extensions? AMD fusion? The movement to lower power consumption? Multiple cores?
Come on, x86 has continued to gain new capabilities and markets since the original IBM PC. If you want to ignore the facts, feel free, but in the last 5 years x86 has gained massive new capabilities, and I don’t see it stopping any time soon.
Wearing blinders doesn’t change facts, it just removes them from view. If your pet processor architecture can’t keep up, too bad.
Well, I suppose moving to 64bit and implementing virtualization proves that x86 can still evolve, although 64bit and virtualization was nothing new. Maybe dead end is too strong and things can still improve.
I still think that x86 is unclean. It is condemned to support legacy software. I know Intel has the best factories and can put a lot of money in supporting x86 with very small transistors and many Gigahertz, but if only they put that money on a clean design, things would be a lot different.
I don’t care for legacy software so I put my money on better design for my next netbook because I have hope that one day we can put an end to the inefficient x86 mess. Give me all the gigahertz and the smaller transistors for less energy on a processor that implements the features I need cleanly and I’ll be happy. I know it takes a revolution to move past x86, and I know it won’t happen, but I refuse to be a lemming.
Edited 2008-12-01 20:00 UTC
Well, that argument just broke down to nothing about opinions and no facts. x86 might not be the “cleanest”, but it is the most successful PC architecture on the planet, and will continue to be, for a very long time.
They put all sorts of money into a clean design, it is called Itanium. It didn’t pick up any traction, MS decided to support x64, and that was that. The market likes x86.
Yes and the market is dumb, as well as those who follow it blindly. If enough people start to think, maybe we can do something good. OK, I know it won’t happen, but wise men seek the truth. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t change anything, but it does matter that it makes you happy. As a technically aware person, it would make me unhappy to use an inefficient x86 on my netbook, especially when the ARM and MIPS architecture are more power efficient and my netbook doesn’t need virtualization, 3D and stuff.
Edited 2008-12-02 06:58 UTC
I still think your point isn’t valid. How is x86 a dead end? It’s the same story. It’s been said for years but x86 continues to grow in the personal computer market (Apple) and into embedded markets. I haven’t seen an argument by anyone here that can make the case that x86 is a dead end. It’s wishful thinking at this point and until a company can make a processor with the price and performance of x86 it’s here to stay. Point me to one next gen processor that makes the cut and I might concede.
That’s not a trick of the English language. Dead being instantaneously over/deceased/kicked-the-bucket/six-feet under/ doesn’t mean no viable long-term future which is what dead end describes in IT terms.
More “x86-killers” have come and gone in the last fifteen years than I can count offhand, I’d say that x86 is probably the farthest from being a dead end that it has ever been.
Only in one segment of the total processor market. What percentage of PDAs and cell phones have used x86 over the years?
It really comes down to whether consumers consider netbooks to be small laptops, web and email appliances, or something else. x86’s advantage evaporates if the machine is not considered a small laptop. I suspect that geeks are more inclined to look to the devices for small laptops, and regular folks to look to them for their web and email appliance needs. And that at this price point, its the regular folks that will matter.
Edited 2008-11-29 18:15 UTC
Which has been the case so long as I can remember.
When have x86 processors ever been aimed at that class of devices?
Netbooks, IMO, straddle the fence between territory where x86 makes sense and territory where it’s overkill. It would take a large, fundamental shift in public preference away from desktops / traditional laptops to make a real dent in x86 usage.
Even if that were to happen, though, Intel has shown that they can be pretty aggressive when it looks like someone is gunning for them (E.g., Transmeta).
I don’t think the difference is important right now. All of the netbooks keep the standard laptop design, and mostly run a full desktop OS (usually XP). So I would think that *everyone* currently sees them as just small laptops, not as some kind of ‘appliance’.
X86 is a dead end? Where’ve you been hiding? I won’t say X86 is the best architecture by a long shot, but if it was a dead end it would have died long ago. X86 is cheap, it’s proven, it’s standardized, and it is capable of evolving for quite a few more years yet especially with the recent developments of low-power chips like the Atom. I’ll believe it to be dead when I see the last x86-based system in a tech museum, and no sooner. That being said, I welcome competition in all things. Competition is the key to innovation, and if another architecture be it based on PPC, MIPS, or something entirely new kills x86 by being superior, let the best architecture win.
These companies are probably too big to have real problems, but ignoring emerging markets is not the way to run a business.
I presume that their declarations are actually a cover for their actual plans. Making power-efficient CPUs is going to be more and more important, and I’m sure they know it.
If they have only Geode CPU to offer, they can forget the market, I has proven its inadequation for the job… Or have AMD an Atom-like CPU incoming anytime soon ? I don’t bet they’re in the right place financialy to discard any form of source of cash, so they’d better think twice before making such foolish statements !
Kochise
In what part of that article did they say they weren’t going to be working on more energy-efficient CPUs? Not concentrating on netbooks, or viewing that market with some reserve, doesn’t mean they won’t be concentrating on making low power chips. There’s a lot more market than simply netbooks for such CPUs.
I’m personally in agreement with Intel on this, netbooks are huge now but in a year? Who knows. I have my doubts on the long-term viability of these devices. Still, I agree that ignoring a market altogether is not a smart thing for AMD to do, not by a long shot.
I think they are afraid that the netbook market with dirt cheap prices canibalyze the lucrative notebook market. Intel and AMD definitely don’t want that to happen.
I think this whole netbook craze is just another IT bubble. It`s a buzzword, but by no means a big market success.
My personal reasons for buying a netbook (Advent 4211 (msi wind)) was simple
I wanted to watch films on the train.
I quite often travel across the country by train and to while away the 5+ hour journeys take my laptop (ibook). Basically, in order to find space to use the thing I would need a table seat as my 14″ laptop wouldnt fit in the foldout trays of a normal seat in a way I considered ‘safe’ and lap was impractical
My Advent fits PERFECTLY into the seat trays. Screen is large enough to happily watch a film (I convert all my dvds to AVIs as standard as I find the drive in my system noisy)
Battery life is not an issue as both FGW and Virgin both have plug socets as standard for all seats
The main criticisms of netbooks are either trackpad or keyboard size related. For me, neither is a major issue as I dont use, nor plan to use, my netbook as my primary machine
Shame about AMD not joining in as it would give further competition which VIA havent really managed to do (played with the VIA powered HP and it ‘felt slow’)
VIA felt slow with C-7, wait for Nano based HP. Hopefully they have it in the pipeline. Nano is 30%+ single core Atom, and pin compatible with C-7, might be an advantage for HP. Other than slowness of HP netbook, reviewers liked its design. With Nano it could be decend contender …
When I was looking for which netbook to buy, my initial want was for the HP
lovely looking thing.
It was the speed compared to (what became) my wind that disappointed me.
Although HP have missed the boat with me (I dont need 2 films at once on a train!!) im sure the NANO chips may sway others in their choice
My personal reasons for buying a netbook (Advent 4211 (msi wind)) was simple
I wanted to watch films on the train.
That’s one of the reasons why I’d also want to get a netbook, I am a huge film buff
And reading some PDF books (mostly studying stuff) and doing some light programming (hobby) would be a perfect way to spend time when not at home. I have my desktop for everything else.
For simply watching movies on the train a PSP would do a nicer job, far less conspicuously — if you care about that — and at a much lower price. Once you get off the train, you could keep using it in the subway or the bus. And with a nice gaming device thrown in for free.
But yes, notebooks are a great invention: inexpensive, cute and powerful enough.
I do have an eee 901 myself, and I never cease to be amazed at how long the battery lasts, and how it runs everything I throw at it, including OpenOffice and Eclipse. 3D-games performance is not stellar, but then there are not that many available for Linux, and that’s what consoles are for, anyway. If I could only shrink my hands, it would be just perfect.
If AMD think they are a passing fad, they’ve got it horribly wrong: just look at how Intel just cannot make as many Atoms as the market demands. Netbooks are only going to become more powerful — next year, at the $200 level we might be getting the 9″ LCD and 20G flash that we get today for $300, and at $300 we’ll probably get 10″, 32G and dual core. All with Intel processors, it seems. And it looks like graphics will still suck.
You’d rather watch a movie on a 4.3″ screen with 480×272 pixels, just to be less conspicuous??
I fear the AMD offerings will be too expensive, and that’s why they can’t aim for this market. I’m sure there will be more expensive, more powerful netbooks with AMD chipsets, but Intel probably won’t rest on its Atom laurels either…
i think all the talking heads are totally missing the point of the netbook.
my kids almost exclusivley use the computer for music listening,web browsing/facebook etc, and e mail and chat.
small(er) lightweight and cheap(er).
the value is in the portability and communication aspect more so than being able to do real world work.and being able to unload your camera so you can sort your pics later !
we dont need an expensive heavy laptop for that! it frankly does what all of us use the computer for 95% of the time–chat,e mail,pics,music and it is great to have it portable!
So do internet tablets (n-series) and (future) phones, arguably doing a better job at this (especially the portability part).
In my view, the only thing that really sets netbooks apart from phones is that they are better for developing/productivity. As notebooks become lighter (Air…) and phones more powerful, I find it hard to see a compelling reason for their existence that is not related to cost.
I’ve used a Eeepc 701 surf as my main PC for the last year..! Have external keyboard, mouse + LCD panel hooked up to it when at home.
On the last train journey I made I’d estimate 15-20% of the people I saw where using a laptop, so I fail to see why you’d feel the need to be inconspicuous.
I prefer books. It stimulates the mind’s imagination and I look forward to work or whatever event I’m about to embark upon, after the train ride is over.
How is your preference of books over movies ontopic?
They’re both escapism, so don’t act like you’re doing something lofty by reading a book. You read a book for five hours, I watch movies for five hours – do you have laundry done? No, neither do I.
you can use your netbook to read an ebook if you like 🙂
Different people like to travel in different ways. The reason I don’t read a book is that I used to get travel sick when i read on trains as a kid. I dont anymore, but I havent shaken the ‘avoiding reading if I can while traveling by train’
Your choice of film will determine how stimulated your mind is (or not, as the case may be)
Hehe, what a bad conclusion. I am one of those ppl, who like being online for the most of the time. As for cell phones, they are hardly usable! I need full keyboard. I want my cell phone to make calls. But then – I sometimes go to have a good coffee to restaurant, and netbook is cool device. 10″ is already nearly big, 12″ definitely being just a normal notebook. Something in between cell phone and 10″ max is very welcomed on my side, nicely fits in small bag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Portfolio
http://oldcomputers.net/portfolio.html
The first netbook, EVER ! With no NET however, at least no web-based lan, but with the attached modem it was able to run a BBS server !
Kochise
For most people and uses the Atom is just fine.
But people who buy a netbook seldom buy a real notebook with C2Ds, so in effect Intel is loosing money. Their last earning showed that.
And the future is looking bleak, once ARM CPUs are as fast as the Atom people will buy Linux-Netbooks with an Arm because it will work all day instead of just a few hours.
And their Moblin initiative is in the end just making ARM-Linux better. So this trend will only accelerate.
Open Source is making the CPU-Architecture irrelevant (in the long run that is.)
Wrong assumptions from top to bottom.
“…people who buy a netbook seldom buy a real notebook with C2Ds.”
No cannibalization so far, according to Intel so your statement doesn’t wash.
“…in effect Intel is loosing (sic) money. Their last earning showed that.”
By beating estimates? If you’re referring to the lowered guidance you’re still off base. I’m sure Intel would be happy to trade a global financial crisis for something so prosaic as a poor product mix.
“…once ARM CPUs are as fast as the Atom people will buy Linux-Netbooks with an Arm because it will work all day instead of just a few hours.”
Do you think Intel is standing still? Ever heard of Moorestown?
“Open Source is making the CPU-Architecture irrelevant (in the long run that is).”
How long is “the long run?” You may as well wait for world peace and universal vegetarianism. There’s no evidence that x86 is losing dominance, so to predict its demise is just more wishful thinking.
Yeah, right. And the whole world needs only 5 computers…
I fail to see the correlation between the 2 comments here….
I fail to see the correlation between the 2 comments here….
The correlation is bad technology predictions.
No one really uses netbooks is inherently the same as estimating that the world needs only 5 computers. Doesn’t really matter if Intel or IBM does the misjudgement. The fact is that reality differs.
People gravitate towards the Netbook, because it is <u>really</u> portable and does 90% of the common things a “luggable” laptop does as well. The trade-off portability/performance is a rather nice one in the Netbook.
That is what it looks like to me. Intel is scared of where low power cheap processors may end up. They already have artificial limitations on how the Atom platform may end up.
While AMD does not have a direct competitor to the Atom, it can compete against the platform and probably will – it can match the system power usage and give better performance.
Question for me is if AMD will remain solvent (enough) for long enough to do this.
Price is what drives the netbook market. Thanks to netbooks, we now have a wide choice of portable PCs in the $300 – $500 price range. A couple of years ago, that was the low end of the desktop market.
I can understand skepticism about the form factor but what isn’t going away any time soon is the price. Desktop PCs are for gamers only now because everyone can afford a laptop.
While client side processing for web applications (i.e. Flash, Java, etc.) had been driving the need for processing power, the arrival of the Internet on phones means websites can no longer rely on their readers having lots of processing power. This means processing power is no longer essential for most applications. This all means that whatever form factor prevails, it is likely to have a cheap CPU rather than a powerful CPU at it’s heart.
As long as a good desktop system is half the price of a decent laptop, desktops aren’t going away.
Also, don’t for get ergonomics.
Not everyone wants a small cramped keyboard or the whatsitcalled mouse replacements.
Who needs a mouse when a keyboard is at hand? 😛
You can plug a mouse, a keyboard and a LCD and use it as if it was a desktop pc, while also being able to take it anywhere at any time (more so if it’s a netbook).
My point is that most people don’t need a “decent” PC. Adequate is fine. An adequate laptop (plugged into the usual desktop peripherals, as mentioned above) is much more useful than a more powerful desktop for most home and business needs.
Sure, but I think most people rather buy a cheaper “good” than a more expensive “adequate”.
The fact is that a desktop will massively outperform any laptop in the same price range. Or perform as well far cheaper than a laptop.
Can you get a laptop:
With 10000rpm drives?
Quad disk RAID?
8GB or 16GB of DDR3 RAM?
A dual Nvidia 280 SLI setup?
A dual core laptop for $300?
Can you easily upgrade a laptop with a new motherboard, CPU, screen or video card?
The answer is a big fat no for all of the above.
No but my point was twofold:
1) People don’t want/need all that stuff. Most people. We all do of course, because we like to run lots of OSs and do stupid stuff like that. But for the majority of home/business users, that extra stuff is of no use. Your web browser doesn’t run any faster.
2) There is no “cheaper”. These laptops are as cheap as the cheapest desktops. That’s what’s new. That’s never happened before, or when it has the devices have been near useless. Now we have fully featured web browsing, movie watching, letter writing laptops at the same price as cheap desktops. There’s no contest.
What’s your point? The market for the kind of machine you are talking about is much smaller than the netbook market. Most people don’t care about that stuff. They want a cheap notebook that they can read their email on and check their facebook or whatever. This whole argument reminds me of people who said that PDAs/Smartphones would never take off because “people don’t want to use a tiny screen and keyboard to send email”. The reality is that netbooks are one of the smallest form factors that allow normal people to do their everyday computing. They’re also great for kids exactly because of the size. This market isn’t going away any time soon.
amd representatives said that amd is ignoring the netbook phenomenon for one reason: because amd is not able to compete in that market yet.
And intel is even worse. Have you ever seen a company speak so negatively against a growing market that it has the monopoly in! Do you know why they’re doing that? More than a few analysts and investors know too.
Intel plays down the sales and impact of the netbook for a different reason than amd: they play it down because their cheap netbook sales are cannibalizing their more expensive laptop sales.
There is an important thing to note here. The reason behind the cannibalization phenomenon: not everyone needs newer faster processors regularly. In the past software has gotten slower with time, thus fueling the purchase of processors just to keep up with Microsoft Word and Microsoft Windows. That ground to a halt with the failure of Vista and the stagnation of the windows PC. XP still runs well on slower hardware. Circa 2003 speed hardware. Which happens to be the performance level of a $9 intel atom processor.
Computers are becoming like toasters. You don’t need a hotter element to toast the same bread anymore. Yet for decades the chip companies have made their fortunes on the demand for more speed.
So what does this mean today? It is the reason Intel doesn’t provide mobile dual core atoms. It is the reason they don’t provide pci-express slots on their dual core atom mini-itx motherboards. Because people replacing their fast expensive hardware with slow cheap hardware is very bad for business.
And breaking the global illusion of needing more speed is even WORSE for business. So they have to put down the netbook. They are only good for an hour.
Yes, very well said. The netbook phenomenon took the big boys by surprise, Microsoft as well as Intel. Tells you all you need to know about what they really think of innovation, which in their case seems to mean being anti-innovation if it threatens monopoly rents and their cosy ways of stratifying the IT market. Intel had a plan for Atom and it didn’t work out the way Intel thought. Rather than revise the plan (not least in the face of a severe recession) or count their blessings from selling lots of chips to netbook-makers – sales that have come from nowhere compared to even a couple of years ago – they whine.
Still, others have gained from this, notably Asus which has come on hugely thanks to the EEE line.
it is always the innovators that find great success in unfilled niches.
the members of the status quo call this “disruptive innovation” because it causes them harm. the rest of us just call it innovation.
If we’re talking about a market that only wanted desktop and laptop computers, then yeah the x86 ISA would be here to stay. It would simply cost too much money to create a competitive architecture and create the software base that consumers demand.
But there’s a hitch. It is doubtful that many people go out and purchase a laptop or desktop computer because they want a general purpose computer. Rather, they want to buy a device that does something for them. That may be surfing the web, listening to music, watching videos, playing games, producing videos, doing accounting, programming software, or whatever. Once those needs have been met they start looking at other features. Yes, performance is one of those needs. But form factor is another need.
When companies like AMD and Intel say that they aren’t going to focus on the netbook market or they portray it as some sort of fad, even though the market is clearly saying otherwise, they are really displaying an anti-consumer attitude. They are really saying that they know the needs of their consumers better than the customers do. Which is pure baloney.
If they continue to display these attitudes, they will face the same problems that the behemoths of prior generations of computing faced. It doesn’t take much of a genius to figure out that there are entire classes of devices that use non-x86 architectures, of which Intel only sells a subset, and that those devices are becoming so sophisticated that they are starting to fill in some of the niches of the computer world. And it won’t take long until someone introduces one of these devices with a large enough screen to read comfortably on, and possibly a large enough keyboard to write comfortably on.
Twice we have seen this attitude almost kill the North American big three auto companies (they still may lose one yet).
Trying to keep up your short term profits is a bad move if it leaves an opening to new competition to grow and take over in the long run.
Clearly Netbooks are not as powerful as full out laptops and desktops, but on the other-hand how many of us have seen friends, family and others buy machines way more powerful than needed because they were talked into it or thought they would need it in the future.
Netbooks could (if very popular) show people that they don’t need the most powerful machine around to do their daily needs. After, very few people carry laptops just to play music/videos.
When companies like AMD and Intel say that they aren’t going to focus on the netbook market or they portray it as some sort of fad, even though the market is clearly saying otherwise, they are really displaying an anti-consumer attitude. They are really saying that they know the needs of their consumers better than the customers do. Which is pure baloney.
I’m not sure that you’re listening to what they’re saying. They aren’t saying that Netbooks suck — or that they’re not interested. What they’re saying is that the price point for Netbooks in North America and Europe is close enough to the bottom tier notebook lines that it doesn’t necessarily make financial sense. Especially when return rates are so high. People aren’t used to the small keyboards and screens — and the return rates prove that out (and don’t both er to point me at a quote from Asus — they’re either mindless or they’re schizophrenics — pick one). Which means that, while Netbooks sound like a great idea for some people (namely, geeks), they’re probably not suitable for the broad market. Intel and AMD aren’t stupid. They’re not going to walk away with money on the table. And these guys know their markets better than you do.
The Netbook market wont go away. It will become more diverse and the edge between netbooks and notebooks will become more blurred.
If Intel doesn’t want to compete in the low price compact end of the market, then Arm and Loongson chips will predominate. The revenge of both Acorn and the Dragon.
Netbooks are like the low end computers , everyone dish on them , yet they all have them , they usually are the company big seller and end up being the most profitable category at the end of the year.
What the poor journalist usually do is look at the sale numbers and conclude well look at that Apple new product is #1 this month , and disregard the fact that Apple is 1 *exclusive* vendor that is like #60 worldwide in sales. Where as netbooks are sold in similar number by everyone else.
That’s the poorly researched part.
Why it’ a poor article , it’s that if you take the netbooks next generation and pit it against thin netbooks there is not gonna be much difference.
The thin will try to go smaller and the netbooks will try and grow more powerfull. It’s a cross road that signal more similarities then real differences.
The other missing point is as much as Intel and AMD make you believe they have any say on how the market do things , people buy there computer from HP , Dell and Acer.
If the Yukon and Congo are going to give an edge over the competition in a netbook category , I am sure they ( HP , Dell , ACER and ASUS ) will use them too.
Just look at the Eee PC S101 as an example :
http://hothardware.com/News/Asus-Shows-New-Swank-Eee-PC-S101-Sexys-…
http://gizmodo.com/5058853/more-info-on-the-asus-s101-the-macbook-a…
Edited 2008-11-28 17:19 UTC
Intel is downplaying the emerging netbook market because they are scared of it eating into the sales of their more expensive line of mobile chips, and more generally scared of the prospect that processing speed is not as important as it used to be.
Perhaps Intel has been too much of a ‘one trick pony’. Sure, they’ve tried to ‘dodge the bullet’ by offering multi-core CPU’s, and even marketing the benefits of more energy-efficient (and cooler running) chips, but essentially they still see themselves as”processing pushers” who feel they are failing unless they get people hooked on more and more processing power. In the past, this strategy has lead them to dominate the market, but now the game is changing, and they (similar to Microsoft) are too big, too slow and too monolithic to adapt with it.
The CPU’s of tomorrow won’t be designed around huge gains in raw processing power. Instead they will benefit from such things as lower power consumption, greater processing efficiency, and perhaps more customized instruction sets that are tailored to specific software tasks – like Java execution, for example. If Intel can reposition themselves towards these goals, they just might not ‘miss the boat’.
I happen to see netbooks as the convergence point between laptops and smartphones. Netbooks will inherit traits from both – that niche of where a “cheaper, smaller, lighter laptop” meets a “beefed-up smartphone.”
This leads me to my final point: Android. As smartphones become more feature-complete, it will challenge the traditional model of personal computing. Asus proved with the EeePC that you could build a Linux netbook – essentially a bundled device – and people would buy it. I’d say within 2 years time, we’ll see an Android netbook on the market – basically an Android phone with a larger screen and keyboard. That will be a real game-changer. When 90% of everthing you need a computer to do can be done on an inexpensive, lightweight, easy to use and maintain, virus-free, open source mobile device, personal computing will never again be the same.
Are netbooks really an emerging market? to me it seems but a niche. I personally wouldn’t buy one, too small and too limited, they are disposable items. It seems to me that in the long run it’s more logical and probably even cheaper to buy a well-equipped laptop.
A lot of people have been betting on netbooks to help GNU/Linux to grow in marketshare, and GNU/Linux to make CPU architecture irrelevant. For the most part that still hasn’t happened, or it is happening at a slow rate. Once Microsoft gets its act together, they’ll bring to the netbook niche more than just XP, which will mean for the most part the netbook niche will be dominated by x86 processors.
That and Loongson is nothing special, as I understand it is a MIPS-clone with some x86-like circuitry for limited x86 compatibility. Better processors came before at times when x86 were really lacking, yet they are virtually gone. x86 is here to stay!
Edited 2008-11-28 20:39 UTC
I was looking at an Eee until the prices started
shooting up.
The 701 is nice but 900 better. The problem is
that I got an Acer 5100 loaded for $400. I still
desire “instant-on” that the netbook delivers but
it is hard to justify paying $700 for something that
does less.
Of course, the netbook and the notebook are in
different markets….
$250 for an acer aspire one. I finally decided to bite when I saw that price
Not only the word “netbook” is crap, so are most of the deviced sold as “netbooks”.
Let’s face it, dudes and duderinas, those netbooks are fun for a couple hours and then they are increasingly ignored. If you’re on the road you can be looking cool with your new gadget but not only are they lousy to really do some typing on, their build quality is often crap (especially the fkn Acers).
Intended for the so-called “emerging markets” they sell more in the US and Europe because people are so bored they have no idea what to do but to consume themselves to death.
That’s right, it’s just this consumption disease, albeit with a geeky OKness about it. Well no, it’s not really cool at all, it’s just sad if you can’t endure being not online for a couple of hours while on the road or whatever.
The “good” thing about it is that Americans and Europeans are up to their hineys in bad debt so there’s no way this market isn’t going to collapse.
Some people will now think I’m a moron, that’s good, it means they’re so happy with their “netbooks”. If I itched anybody’s geeky political correctness, scusi.
In the mean time, if you do keep buying “netbooks”, do me a favor and just don’t buy those damn Acers, they suck so bad it hurts.
//. it’s good to rant.. but what if I’m wrong? //
Let’s face it, dudes and duderinas, those netbooks are fun for a couple hours and then they are increasingly ignored. If you’re on the road you can be looking cool with your new gadget but not only are they lousy to really do some typing on, their build quality is often crap (especially the fkn Acers).
Maybe you’re using them for the wrong reasons? I couldn’t care less whether or not some gadget makes me look “cool”, that’s not a good reason to buy gadgets. I would use netbook for reading stuff and studying on the go, or for watching movies, or for light programming. Netbooks are perfect for such tasks as they’re a lot lighter than full-blown laptops so they can be lugged along easily. And I don’t have any issue with the size of the keyboard either. But then again, you men have slightly bigger hands.
I’m not using them, I have a Thinkpad.
Which is years older than most netbooks and going to survive most of them. 😉
Perhaps you’re right.
My beef with the “netbooks” is that their quality is often total crap.
I play double bass, and I can’t play the guitar because those damn strings are too close together. 😉
I have a Thinkpad T61P, but I’m not wanting to lug it to the coffee shop lately because I have back problems.
I’m looking at the Lenovo S10, and I’m going to try to hold out until they release the 6-cell battery in the US.
I’ve already gotten an S10, direct from the local Lenovo showroom. I’m now a part-time teacher who commutes from work to the university, and a netbook is simply convenient to pack into my bag and set-up with the classroom projector for my PowerPoint lectures. I have no illusions about what it can and cannot do with ease, and as long as a potential buyer has his expectations matched-up with a netbook’s capabilities, there really shouldn’t be a problem.
I personally have no ergonomic or comfort-of-use problems with my S10. It’s interesting to note that the high return rates mentioned are in Europe, but I haven’t heard of such numbers coming here out of Asia, where people are accustomed to using smaller devices because a lot of them have smaller hands.
There’s only one reason Apple, AMD, and Intel don’t like the netbook market, and that’s because the margins are so thin that it’s not worth participating in the segment. And those margins are only going to get thinner as time goes on.
The vast majority of people don’t buy a netbook because of its form factor or open source OS, they buy it because it’s a $300 computer, which is below their risk threshold.
For the first time I feel the urge to comment an OsNews story, so I’m out of my 5 years long (or longer) time of lurking to say that I use an Acer Aspire One as my main computer (I’m abroad) and I really don’t see any difference between it and a normal laptop, at least if you’re not into niches like video editing or 3d gaming, of course.
I fail to see any inconvenience, like those Intel points at, or those most comments pointed at.
I think netbooks redefine the concept of bang for the buck: you get a notebook with just the right amount of power, just the right amount of disk space (because who doesn’t store data in an external drive these days, anyway?), and so much more portability and in some case battery power, as to become the BEST portability choice. All of this at half the price.
I bought the Acer Aspire One because it was the only PC I could afford, and it happened to be the best among a VERY broad range of unaffordable machines too.
It must be true that there are lots of people who buy at the highest price for the sake of it.
I already have a desktop that can handle most anything I want to do.
However I’m looking for a second portable computer that will handle everyday tasks; email, flash videos, webbrowsing, paper writing, reading. There really isn’t a computer around today that wont do these tasks well. Buying a machine based on unlikely scenarios including “what if I have the urge to play crisis while on the toilet” isn’t a good buying strategy.
If performance a defining factor then what then should I buy based on. The only things I’ve come up with are:
Size, Weight
Batter Life
Screen Area
Keyboard comfort
I chose a 15.4 inch laptop with modest specs for $700 because it was big enough I was happy with the screen and still light enough that I’ll bring it with me everywhere.
However had I been someone that was happy with a 10inch screen and felt that weight and size of a large machine would negate me bringing it around then I’d have bought a netbook.
I really think that size/mass is the defining element of if people want them or think they are useless.
Completely agree.
And taking budget into account too, you clearly see my previous point of paying less for what you want the most.
I’ve been very excited about this machine running Ubuntu Linux, but in the end I found this is more like a toy. The keyboard is just a bit too small to feel comfortable and the screen in the end is not even large enough to comfortably do text editing. Battery life is just a bit too short to make it useful for anything either.
I think many other people will come to their senses as did I, and find that they’ve been excited about a toy that doesn’t really give them much and really isn’t very useful. I’ll stick with my MacBook (and also install Ubuntu on a partition) and get me an iPod touch for extreme mobility.
Edited 2008-12-01 10:17 UTC
None of the drawbacks you mentioned can affect usefulness at all. So given that netbooks simply “don’t give you much”, or as much, as a MacBook, but given they’re useful (no problem with text editing, nor with image editing for that matter), and given they can cost 1/10 (exactly: ONE TENTH) of a MacBook, and given that an iPod Touch can cost you more than a netbook but REALLY give you less, and especially REALLY be less useful… Given all these simple points I at the very least assume you don’t take into account a price/real-value index when it comes to buy a device.
In terms of specifications, full-feature low-end computers can hardly threaten high-end ones. But the trick is that before netbooks were invented, customers who didn’t require a supercomputer had no choice but to purchase a laptop. Now that they finally get the very product that meets their needs, chip makers are worried that the resulting decline in laptop sales and the low margin on netbooks will drastically reduce their profits. That calculation does not take in account that consumers might be enclined to purchase more netbooks per household than they would have done with laptops. In a family of four, one $200 netbook per person could be a much more flexible alternative than a single $800 laptop everyone has to line up for.