3 ms·

There are bound to be overstock netbooks that never sold available on ebay. But if you're asking does anyone make them anymore, No. Tablets killed them.

discostrings 13y ago
> No. Tablets killed them. I'd argue that Microsoft and Intel killed them with their arbitrary restrictions on what could be a netbook.[1] I imagine they realized netbooks would put a huge dent in their sales of more expensive systems, so they effectively put a stop to them. I'm sure tablets didn't help at all, but the limits kept netbooks just below the edge of usefulness in many cases. So they developed the reputation of being slow and people stopped buying them. [1] http://www.itexaminer.com/microsoft-adds-to-atoms-restrictions.aspx http://www.itexaminer.com/microsoft-adds-to-atoms-restrictio...
- charlesray 13y ago
  I highly doubt that had much, if anything, do with the netbook's decline. From the beginning it was just a cheap, small laptop. Tablets are as cheap, smaller, and run operating systems that are designed for low-power systems, so they feel faster. The few people (e.g. me) who actually wanted a keyboard moved on to low-end ultrabooks.
  - discostrings 13y ago
    A lot of people would love a cheap, small laptop. That's what they wish an ultrabook was. Unfortunately, they're only getting the small, not the cheap. If the specs could have been a bit higher and increased in a timely manner, netbooks would have been perfect for a lot of the market. They were limited in speed just below the edge of what most people would consider to be capable.
    - jdjb 13y ago
      The specs only need to be higher if you want to run modern Windows on it. If Ubuntu netbook edition was more user friendly and more windows-like I'm sure a lot of people would've been very happy with a low specs machine that ran smooth enough for the kind of tasks you'd want to do on a <= 10'' screen.
      - discostrings 13y ago
        > The specs only need to be higher if you want to run modern Windows on it. I agree, and that's the tragedy of the situation. The first netbooks shipped with Linux, and Microsoft saw that as a threat, so they started licensing Windows at very low rates for netbooks. When the cost difference was minimal to ship Windows on netbooks, that's what vendors did, and the Windows netbooks dominated the market. Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks. Netbooks then developed a reputation of being slow because most of the netbooks on the market were running Windows and were slow. The "netbook" name was already tarnished, making it difficult for the original Linux netbook idea to succeed.
        scholia 13y ago
        See my earlier answer here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272342 > The first netbooks shipped with Linux The first netbook shipped with Linux but the launch announcement for the Asus included both Windows XP and Linux. Windows sold better and was more profitable. > Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks. No, the capabilities of netbooks were always limited. The netbook spec was upgraded twice to allow larger hard drives and screens etc. You could certainly argue that it wasn't upgraded enough, but then, it was limited to protect sales of laptops that were more profitable for Intel, Microsoft and the netbook OEMs. Netbooks had two main points: (1) provide a portable PC solution suitable for schools -- see Intel Classmate and, indeed, OLPC; (2) to provide a companion PC for existing PC users. It was nobody's idea to provide cut-price netbooks that would damage laptop sales. You might think it's a tragedy but it's just business.
  - jljljl 13y ago
    MSFT certainly didn't help. For example, a lot of netbooks were packaged with Windows 7 Starter, a seriously limited version of Windows. I'm skeptical that the hardware couldn't handle full Windows (because Starter also provided an Anytime Upgrade option), so it seems likely this was an intentional decision to reduce the features of netbooks at the software level, in order to avoid cannibalizing larger PC's and laptops. EDIT: link to feature limitations for W7 Starter: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_install/windows-7-starter-what-are-the-limitations/422801d5-89de-494d-8cc1-6f4fc21c2ac0 http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-w...
    - scholia 13y ago
      The netbook manufacturers were free to install a full copy of Windows 7 or Ubuntu or anything else they wanted (except Mac OS X, obviously). They didn't want to install a full copy of Windows 7 because they would have had to pay the full price for it (after the usual discounts etc). After much argument, they came up with a compromise that had acceptable functionality (to Microsoft) at an acceptable price (to the OEMs). So Microsoft was helping, rather than "not helping". But you're right: the aim was to sell netbooks without having too big an impact on more profitable sales of laptops.
- happycube 13y ago
  Having owned an eee 701, I'd argue that the Samsung ARM Chromebook in particular carries on the original Netbook concept, and Chromebooks as a whole are increasingly successful. By that token, Netbooks ain't dead, they just broke free of Microsoft and Intel ;)
  - 6ren 13y ago
    I think that's the closest (also asus transformer), but the ARM Chromebook is a lot bigger than an eee 701 (though similar weight). It's more like a super-light laptop - a macbook air.
- 6ren 13y ago
  Historically, netbooks were exploding in popularity because they were cheap and good enough. One factor to their cheapness was they didn't run Windows, but linux instead. MS then did something very insightful, courageous and (to me) disappointing: they sold Windows for next to nothing on netbooks (I think it was $20 or something). This stopped them being disrupted by linux. Sadly, netbooks faded quickly. Putting what others have said in a different context, what killed netbooks was the same thing that killed desktops and laptops: smartphones and tablets. They are cheaper, more convenient, easier to use - and powerful enough for what people need to do. Desktops, laptops and yes even netbooks overshoot mainstream needs. FWIW I'm currently using an eee PC 701 (i.e. the original netbook), and it's only the iPhone 5 that finally caught up with it. But that didn't stop earlier iPhones and androids from meeting most people's need better than it. PS: as for intel, I believe Atoms far too slow in themselves, quite apart from "PCI Express and digital video outputs" http://www.itexaminer.com/intels-atom-is-a-gem.aspx http://www.itexaminer.com/intels-atom-is-a-gem.aspx so I don't was Intel that killed them.
captainmuon 13y ago
"Tablets killed netbooks" is a meme that gets often repeated, but is really misleading. You're definitely right that vendors have moved on from netbooks and are putting their energy now into tablets. But that doesn't mean tablets have replaced netbooks. Netbooks have a bunch of use cases that don't apply to tablets and vice versa. I bought my good old eeePC netbook mainly for: - Typing on the go. It's much lighter than a regular laptop (was back then), and the model I have has a very good, almost-full-size keyboard. - Its unprecedented battery life (again, back then). I could even forget the cable at home, and it would last the whole day. - Meetings. For some reason, we have lots of meetings in my field, and almost everybody brings their laptop (to make notes, follow the slides, etc.). I found the eeePC ideal because it needs no cable (no crawling on the floor) and is small and unconspicuous. If I'm using my notebook in a meeting, at least I don't want to hide behind it. Compare with a tablet: I can hardly type anything else than text messages on touchscreens. And while laptops are for some reason socially accepted in meetings, I couldn't show up with a tablet. Everybody would think I was just playing. (That's changing slowly, however). Finally, the biggest difference is that a netbook is a general purpose PC. I can run all programs I need for work on it. That doesn't work on locked-down tablets. When Windows 8 came out, I was really hoping for cheap 10-inch Atom or ARM tablets with the nice keyboard covers (and an unlocked OS so I could actually do work on them). Such a tablet would really be a worthy netbook replacement.
- happycube 13y ago
  To me Windows 8 is a nice OS that was ruined by Marketing - rip metro/modern ui out and everyone would have loved it as Windows 7.1, and a $299 Samsung ARM Netbook with it would probably have sold quite well ;)
  - captainmuon 13y ago
    Yeah, Windows 8 is this decade's Vista. The most rediculous thing about Metro/Modern UI and Netbooks is that doesn't run on low resolutions, although it would work perfectly since it's mostly text, and completely scalable. It does work on my 24" desktop, where its a complete waste of screen space.

discostrings 13y ago

> No. Tablets killed them. I'd argue that Microsoft and Intel killed them with their arbitrary restrictions on what could be a netbook.[1] I imagine they realized netbooks would put a huge dent in their sales of more expensive systems, so they effectively put a stop to them. I'm sure tablets didn't help at all, but the limits kept netbooks just below the edge of usefulness in many cases. So they developed the reputation of being slow and people stopped buying them. [1] http://www.itexaminer.com/microsoft-adds-to-atoms-restrictions.aspx http://www.itexaminer.com/microsoft-adds-to-atoms-restrictio...

charlesray 13y ago
I highly doubt that had much, if anything, do with the netbook's decline. From the beginning it was just a cheap, small laptop. Tablets are as cheap, smaller, and run operating systems that are designed for low-power systems, so they feel faster. The few people (e.g. me) who actually wanted a keyboard moved on to low-end ultrabooks.
- discostrings 13y ago
  A lot of people would love a cheap, small laptop. That's what they wish an ultrabook was. Unfortunately, they're only getting the small, not the cheap. If the specs could have been a bit higher and increased in a timely manner, netbooks would have been perfect for a lot of the market. They were limited in speed just below the edge of what most people would consider to be capable.
  - jdjb 13y ago
    The specs only need to be higher if you want to run modern Windows on it. If Ubuntu netbook edition was more user friendly and more windows-like I'm sure a lot of people would've been very happy with a low specs machine that ran smooth enough for the kind of tasks you'd want to do on a <= 10'' screen.
    - discostrings 13y ago
      > The specs only need to be higher if you want to run modern Windows on it. I agree, and that's the tragedy of the situation. The first netbooks shipped with Linux, and Microsoft saw that as a threat, so they started licensing Windows at very low rates for netbooks. When the cost difference was minimal to ship Windows on netbooks, that's what vendors did, and the Windows netbooks dominated the market. Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks. Netbooks then developed a reputation of being slow because most of the netbooks on the market were running Windows and were slow. The "netbook" name was already tarnished, making it difficult for the original Linux netbook idea to succeed.
      - scholia 13y ago
        See my earlier answer here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272342 > The first netbooks shipped with Linux The first netbook shipped with Linux but the launch announcement for the Asus included both Windows XP and Linux. Windows sold better and was more profitable. > Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks. No, the capabilities of netbooks were always limited. The netbook spec was upgraded twice to allow larger hard drives and screens etc. You could certainly argue that it wasn't upgraded enough, but then, it was limited to protect sales of laptops that were more profitable for Intel, Microsoft and the netbook OEMs. Netbooks had two main points: (1) provide a portable PC solution suitable for schools -- see Intel Classmate and, indeed, OLPC; (2) to provide a companion PC for existing PC users. It was nobody's idea to provide cut-price netbooks that would damage laptop sales. You might think it's a tragedy but it's just business.
- jljljl 13y ago
  MSFT certainly didn't help. For example, a lot of netbooks were packaged with Windows 7 Starter, a seriously limited version of Windows. I'm skeptical that the hardware couldn't handle full Windows (because Starter also provided an Anytime Upgrade option), so it seems likely this was an intentional decision to reduce the features of netbooks at the software level, in order to avoid cannibalizing larger PC's and laptops. EDIT: link to feature limitations for W7 Starter: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_install/windows-7-starter-what-are-the-limitations/422801d5-89de-494d-8cc1-6f4fc21c2ac0 http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-w...
  - scholia 13y ago
    The netbook manufacturers were free to install a full copy of Windows 7 or Ubuntu or anything else they wanted (except Mac OS X, obviously). They didn't want to install a full copy of Windows 7 because they would have had to pay the full price for it (after the usual discounts etc). After much argument, they came up with a compromise that had acceptable functionality (to Microsoft) at an acceptable price (to the OEMs). So Microsoft was helping, rather than "not helping". But you're right: the aim was to sell netbooks without having too big an impact on more profitable sales of laptops.
happycube 13y ago
Having owned an eee 701, I'd argue that the Samsung ARM Chromebook in particular carries on the original Netbook concept, and Chromebooks as a whole are increasingly successful. By that token, Netbooks ain't dead, they just broke free of Microsoft and Intel ;)
- 6ren 13y ago
  I think that's the closest (also asus transformer), but the ARM Chromebook is a lot bigger than an eee 701 (though similar weight). It's more like a super-light laptop - a macbook air.
6ren 13y ago
Historically, netbooks were exploding in popularity because they were cheap and good enough. One factor to their cheapness was they didn't run Windows, but linux instead. MS then did something very insightful, courageous and (to me) disappointing: they sold Windows for next to nothing on netbooks (I think it was $20 or something). This stopped them being disrupted by linux. Sadly, netbooks faded quickly. Putting what others have said in a different context, what killed netbooks was the same thing that killed desktops and laptops: smartphones and tablets. They are cheaper, more convenient, easier to use - and powerful enough for what people need to do. Desktops, laptops and yes even netbooks overshoot mainstream needs. FWIW I'm currently using an eee PC 701 (i.e. the original netbook), and it's only the iPhone 5 that finally caught up with it. But that didn't stop earlier iPhones and androids from meeting most people's need better than it. PS: as for intel, I believe Atoms far too slow in themselves, quite apart from "PCI Express and digital video outputs" http://www.itexaminer.com/intels-atom-is-a-gem.aspx http://www.itexaminer.com/intels-atom-is-a-gem.aspx so I don't was Intel that killed them.

captainmuon 13y ago

"Tablets killed netbooks" is a meme that gets often repeated, but is really misleading. You're definitely right that vendors have moved on from netbooks and are putting their energy now into tablets. But that doesn't mean tablets have replaced netbooks. Netbooks have a bunch of use cases that don't apply to tablets and vice versa. I bought my good old eeePC netbook mainly for: - Typing on the go. It's much lighter than a regular laptop (was back then), and the model I have has a very good, almost-full-size keyboard. - Its unprecedented battery life (again, back then). I could even forget the cable at home, and it would last the whole day. - Meetings. For some reason, we have lots of meetings in my field, and almost everybody brings their laptop (to make notes, follow the slides, etc.). I found the eeePC ideal because it needs no cable (no crawling on the floor) and is small and unconspicuous. If I'm using my notebook in a meeting, at least I don't want to hide behind it. Compare with a tablet: I can hardly type anything else than text messages on touchscreens. And while laptops are for some reason socially accepted in meetings, I couldn't show up with a tablet. Everybody would think I was just playing. (That's changing slowly, however). Finally, the biggest difference is that a netbook is a general purpose PC. I can run all programs I need for work on it. That doesn't work on locked-down tablets. When Windows 8 came out, I was really hoping for cheap 10-inch Atom or ARM tablets with the nice keyboard covers (and an unlocked OS so I could actually do work on them). Such a tablet would really be a worthy netbook replacement.

happycube 13y ago
To me Windows 8 is a nice OS that was ruined by Marketing - rip metro/modern ui out and everyone would have loved it as Windows 7.1, and a $299 Samsung ARM Netbook with it would probably have sold quite well ;)
- captainmuon 13y ago
  Yeah, Windows 8 is this decade's Vista. The most rediculous thing about Metro/Modern UI and Netbooks is that doesn't run on low resolutions, although it would work perfectly since it's mostly text, and completely scalable. It does work on my 24" desktop, where its a complete waste of screen space.