5 ms·

The problem with netbooks is they are very slow with Windows on them and most of them still cost $500. For most people a tablet would offer a much better experi

The problem with netbooks is they are very slow with Windows on them and most of them still cost $500. For most people a tablet would offer a much better experience overall for surfing the web. But I think we'll start seeing a lot of ARM based slim netbooks/low-end notebooks with quad core 1.5 Ghz Tegra 3 chips that will cost under $250-$300 with either Chrome OS or Android, that will fulfill the netbook's purpose of surfing the web very well for that price. I think a lot of people would still prefer a machine that is half the price of iPad and has a real keyboard, for surfing the web, and that will seem very fast, at least compared to an Atom running under Windows 7. I didn't read the article, but was he suggesting it was the Macbook Air that killed the netbook? I think that's ridiculous. A macbook air is what $1000-$1400? It wouldn't even be on most people's radar when looking for a cheap mobile computer they can surf the web on.

GFischer 15y ago
Are they really that expensive in the U.S.? I expected them to be cheaper than here in Uruguay, where an Atom-based netbook sells from U$ 300 to U$ 500. And, Windows 7 or XP netbooks offer a very good web surfing experience (both my girlfriend and my mother-in-law are very pleased).
todayiamme 15y ago
>>> didn't read the article, but was he suggesting it was the Macbook Air that killed the netbook? <<< I'm sorry if this is rude, but I downvoted you. I did that because you didn't bother to read the article, but you bothered to comment. It's just isn't that simple. His argument for the MacBook Air is that it's in the same form factor, while having incredible battery life and being more powerful computationally. Plus, throw in OS X and you have a deal. In a way Air is netbook inspired in terms of the form factor, and the it killed the netbook by making the point that you could still pack in impressive features into a form factor that small by conventional standards, while having a decent profit margin. In the article, the author makes the point that what really killed the netbook was portable computing (in the form of smart phones and tablets) that packed the same punch and was more intuitive, while maintaining a good enough profit margin for hardware manufacturers to stampede in order to get into the segment. That said, I have a netbook, an Acer Aspire One, and it runs Ubuntu 10.10 with a grin and is quite awesome once you get used to the tiny keyboard... Besides, I really do think that no one is taking real advantage of modern computing and you can still write Ruby code on Pentium 2 era PC once you flash it and boil it down to the basics. I think that if someone is dedicated then even a dumb terminal is enough to write code, why do you need that new found computational power? This really is an honest question.
- Goladus 15y ago
  I downvoted your post because the second sentence attacks the poster rather than the post. It is impossible to you to know for sure whether someone read an article or not before posting. Such a guess never adds anything to a discussion. It is always possible to address flaws in a post without accusing the author of not reading something.
  - bryanlarsen 15y ago
    He didn't guess. nextparadigms admitted that he didn't read the article.
  - todayiamme 15y ago
    I'm sorry if it sounds like I was attacking him, but I actually didn't mean to. The author admitted that he hadn't read the post... P.S. - I'm a she not a he...
    - Goladus 15y ago
      Yeah my mistake there, sorry.
- kijinbear 15y ago
  I completely agree with the author's argument about smartphones and tablets, but I think @nextparadigms is right about the MacBook Air. It belongs in a completely different market segment, along with $2,000 "ultraportables" from Lenovo and Toshiba. That segment has been there for a long time even before netbooks appeared. It's definitely possible to pack a real Core 2 or i7 processor, an optical drive, and 10+ hours of battery life in a 11-13 inch form factor with a weight of no more than 3 pounds. It gets pretty damn expensive, though, even without the mandatory Apple mark-up. Personally, I would urge anyone who has a good enough budget to get a real ultraportable instead of a half-assed Atom netbook. But if somebody is shopping for a $350 netbook, I don't think they'd consider the MacBook Air a serious alternative. If anything, smartphones and tablets are stealing market share from both netbooks and ultraportables.
Vvector 15y ago
"[The Mackbook Air] wouldn't even be on most people's radar when looking for a cheap mobile computer they can surf the web on." The article suggests that netbooks have three primary features: lightweight, low price, long battery life. The MB Air nails two of those, and works for consumers that don't mind the extra price. For those who are price sensitive, netbooks have been attacked on the bottom front by tablets and smartphones.
- pyre 15y ago
  There are netbooks with 9-14 hours of battery life. How does 6 hours of battery life 'nail it' in comparison?

GFischer 15y ago

Are they really that expensive in the U.S.? I expected them to be cheaper than here in Uruguay, where an Atom-based netbook sells from U$ 300 to U$ 500. And, Windows 7 or XP netbooks offer a very good web surfing experience (both my girlfriend and my mother-in-law are very pleased).

todayiamme 15y ago

>>> didn't read the article, but was he suggesting it was the Macbook Air that killed the netbook? <<< I'm sorry if this is rude, but I downvoted you. I did that because you didn't bother to read the article, but you bothered to comment. It's just isn't that simple. His argument for the MacBook Air is that it's in the same form factor, while having incredible battery life and being more powerful computationally. Plus, throw in OS X and you have a deal. In a way Air is netbook inspired in terms of the form factor, and the it killed the netbook by making the point that you could still pack in impressive features into a form factor that small by conventional standards, while having a decent profit margin. In the article, the author makes the point that what really killed the netbook was portable computing (in the form of smart phones and tablets) that packed the same punch and was more intuitive, while maintaining a good enough profit margin for hardware manufacturers to stampede in order to get into the segment. That said, I have a netbook, an Acer Aspire One, and it runs Ubuntu 10.10 with a grin and is quite awesome once you get used to the tiny keyboard... Besides, I really do think that no one is taking real advantage of modern computing and you can still write Ruby code on Pentium 2 era PC once you flash it and boil it down to the basics. I think that if someone is dedicated then even a dumb terminal is enough to write code, why do you need that new found computational power? This really is an honest question.

Goladus 15y ago
I downvoted your post because the second sentence attacks the poster rather than the post. It is impossible to you to know for sure whether someone read an article or not before posting. Such a guess never adds anything to a discussion. It is always possible to address flaws in a post without accusing the author of not reading something.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  He didn't guess. nextparadigms admitted that he didn't read the article.
- todayiamme 15y ago
  I'm sorry if it sounds like I was attacking him, but I actually didn't mean to. The author admitted that he hadn't read the post... P.S. - I'm a she not a he...
  - Goladus 15y ago
    Yeah my mistake there, sorry.
kijinbear 15y ago
I completely agree with the author's argument about smartphones and tablets, but I think @nextparadigms is right about the MacBook Air. It belongs in a completely different market segment, along with $2,000 "ultraportables" from Lenovo and Toshiba. That segment has been there for a long time even before netbooks appeared. It's definitely possible to pack a real Core 2 or i7 processor, an optical drive, and 10+ hours of battery life in a 11-13 inch form factor with a weight of no more than 3 pounds. It gets pretty damn expensive, though, even without the mandatory Apple mark-up. Personally, I would urge anyone who has a good enough budget to get a real ultraportable instead of a half-assed Atom netbook. But if somebody is shopping for a $350 netbook, I don't think they'd consider the MacBook Air a serious alternative. If anything, smartphones and tablets are stealing market share from both netbooks and ultraportables.

Vvector 15y ago

"[The Mackbook Air] wouldn't even be on most people's radar when looking for a cheap mobile computer they can surf the web on." The article suggests that netbooks have three primary features: lightweight, low price, long battery life. The MB Air nails two of those, and works for consumers that don't mind the extra price. For those who are price sensitive, netbooks have been attacked on the bottom front by tablets and smartphones.

pyre 15y ago
There are netbooks with 9-14 hours of battery life. How does 6 hours of battery life 'nail it' in comparison?