2 ms·
> They device type didn't fail The netbooks, as a sub 10", cheap-as-fuck category, failed and I can't blame users on that. There is some rose tinted nostalgia
by justsomehnguy 3y ago
> They device type didn't fail
The netbooks, as a sub 10", cheap-as-fuck category, failed and I can't blame users on that. There is some rose tinted nostalgia around them, just like for the Nokia 'smartphones', but these were gutted on an every perceivable metric[0]
By the time they could catch up the market already had iPad and multiple Android tablets in 8" to 10" size, which solved the two main points for the populace: access to Internet and the touchscreen.
The result is what I had an (almost perfect) Acer W4-821 a decade ago and can't have anything even remotely comparable on x64 arch at all now.
[0] Like, come on! https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-Eee-PC-701-4G.6745.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-Eee-PC-701-4G.6745.0.html
[1] https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Iconia-W4-821.129255.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Iconia-W4-821.129255.0.ht...
- dragonwriter 3y ago> The netbooks, as a sub 10" The upthread user was discussing 10-12", not sub-10", netbook included both. The sub-10” segment, where keyboards were of limited utility because they were too small for most people's hands, lost to smartphones/tablets, the 10"+ segment was won by Chromebooks. > The result is what I had an (almost perfect) Acer W4-821 a decade ago and can't have anything even remotely comparable on x64 arch at all now. But that's a tablet, not a netbook. That's a sign that Intel got displaced on even relatively powerful mobile devices, not the death of the netbook.