Apple Killed the Netbook | Hacker News Reader

Apple Killed the Netbook

slate.com

14 pointsjoxie36 comments

People were snapping up $200 to $300 netbooks because they were broke, thus it stands to reason that these people were holding out to pay north of $700 for a touch tablet with an incomplete OS you couldn't run two programs on simultaneously?

What killed the netbook is simply that the price of a genuine laptop went down in price. Picking up a brand new 15" laptop for $400 was unheard of 2 years ago. Hell, I bought my i5 w/ 6 gig Ram for $550 brand new. That would have been the price of a mid-line netbook two years ago.

Perhaps the price of laptops was forced lower in order to compete with tablet devices.

Perhaps the opposite of that since laptops came first, by a bit.

I bought a netbook because I wanted a computer that I could easily bring along while traveling because I went to a lot of meetings abroad at the time. I could easily have afforded a laptop but they were not nearly as portable at the time, so the MacBook Air style computers have also had a big impact on netbook sales for people like me.

I think the point you raise is valid, but the way you arrive to it is disingenuous.

North of $700? The iPad starts at $500, and recently, the iPad Mini at $330. Granted the Mini is late in this timeline, but it stands to reason the price point is closer than you're making it out to be.

Secondly, an "incomplete OS" is a fallacy. It's complete to the spec it was designed for. Yes, that means its not intended to be a fully-fledged desktop OS, but its not inherently incomplete, just focused.

Thirdly, "running two programs simultaneously" – I'd wager that many netbook users (myself included) found the netbook so limiting and simple that it was only ever used for doing one thing at a time, such as reading email, browsing the web, listening to music or reading a book; all of which now accomplished by the iPad.

Fair points. I'm sort of going by the price points from when the iPad first came out and I really don't recall the real price, but the baseline was definitely higher than today's baseline models. Quick search suggest $500 for the baseline, which isn't competitive to $300.

Yes, I agree that the "incomplete" OS is sort of a fallacy, but not in all cases. Even if the iPad started up at $300, I'm pretty sure most people, especially those who had no computer at all, would dive toward a netbook, since yes, you could run Word + Browse the Web + listen to music (no flash! no youtube!), plus, you know, type on it. The big fallacy with the article is that the author is suggesting that an iPad could have replaced a netbook, and this, I hope you agree, simply was not, and is not, the case, and I really don't believe that many people would have bought an iPad if they didn't already have a computer of some sort, though I could be wrong here.

In regards to how much you can push an Intel Atom. Well, let's see here. I watched youtube lecture videos, ran Python IDLE, and even had other programs open while doing all of this. I also had successfully installed and ran MySQL, Xampp, Drupal, Gimp, and Emacs simultaneously. Not saying this is optimal, but just saying that you could do it. I ran Eclipse and Java for a week to test those waters too. It was fine for my first forays into development, so I think it would have been okay for the Average User. I still have the thing sitting on my shelf.

> I really don't believe that many people would have bought an iPad if they didn't already have a computer of some sort, though I could be wrong here.

When the iPad came out didn't you need a computer (with iTunes) to activate it? I vaguely recall Apple offering to activate iPads at Apple Stores at some point, but I'd presume the vast majority of iPad users didn't need that.

seems legit. I'm not into the tablet market enough but are there small cheap tablets that you can hook up to a projector and use to present your powerpoints and documents? That's what most people I know having a notebook use it for: they don't want to drag around a laptop

What killed the netbook was smart phones. Why by a netbook when i can buy a smart phone and browse the web while in bathroom and also use it outside the house and as a phone.

You have to go throug some hassle to make your pone display pdf/ppt/xls/whatnot files, let alone it's a pleasant experience on a small screen. But you cannot (easily) hook up your phone to a bigger screen. You cannot add all kinds of common usb devices to your phone. You cannot quickly start an ssh session to your server. Etcetera. These are all valid use cases for netbooks. Not for phones, no matter how smart they are. Face it, your phone OS is kinda limited compared to whatever OS running on a pc. .

Cue Ubuntu Phone.

Just like they snapped up Vista laptops because they were too broke to buy MacBooks?

One issue the article doesn't touch on is the various restrictions Microsoft and Intel put on netbooks (to protect their margins related to other PCs, I believe). I'd say those were at least a contributing factor (if not the underlying killer) because those restrictions made it much harder for netbooks to change as the competitive landscape did.

I'd say that was the killer full stop. I would dearly have loved to have kept on buying netbooks, but they're still at 2GB RAM, (mostly) one core and 1024x768 even 3-4 years on.

Microsoft put that ceiling there, not Apple.

That's a little misleading: the ceiling applied only to the discounted version of Windows. Any manufacturer who wanted to sell netbooks with better specs could have sprung for the full-price Windows license.

What you suggest is not financially possible given the tight margins for netbooks, and MS knows this.

They would essentially be paying their customers for each device and then losing money with each machine.

I'm honestly surprised that Charles Arthur's article is being referenced in so many places without taking into account that Arthur is well known for being an Apple fan (there are several examples in the tech section of the Guardian; ie. the Windows PC are dead because Apple is growing faster, but don't look at the market share!).

I'm not saying the iPad didn't have a role in the netbook decline, but "Apple killed the netbook" sounds to me like it's a little bit excessive. May be it was the raise of smartphones and tablets, but not just from Apple.

Signed: an habitual reader of the Guardian's tech section :)

Agreed. Just flagged the article. These people with unethical journalistic bias are only causing more confusion amongst the readers usually leading to an unwanted debate so they can benefit (=pageviews) out of it.

You flagged an article because you didn't agree with the author's opinion? I guess I should go flag half of the the Hacker News top posts.

I said I flagged it because of the unethical nature of the article. Don't manipulate things as you see fit, please.

What I find most confusing about this article that the author finds that netbooks went away for good.

Since when choice is that bad? No one's forced to buy a netbook if he doesn't want to, right?

I bought an eeePC 900A in late 2008 and it's travelled all over the world with me now, gone to several conferences and troubleshooting gigs at friends and relatives, and basically everywhere I didn't want to carry a 15" notebook (don't have anything between)

Yes, it was a bit slow, but it's running a default debian install on a LUKS-encrypted 8GB SSD - what's not to love about it?

I indeed mourn the downfall of the netbook, and if mine ever dies I'd be very much tempted to get a new one for ~250 EUR just before a larger trip.

Edit: I have HTC Desire Z and a 7" ainol tablet, I like both - but for nearly everything I've ever used my netbook, I can't use them really. Only exception is writing blog posts on the road...

In some circles this isn't a popular sentiment, but rest in peace, netbook. Put a minimal Linux distro and a light X setup on it and you've got a very usable machine for ~$300 or less. I guess when my current one breaks I'll have to resort to Debian arm on an android tablet, or similar.

Or a Chromebook.

I was pretty darn happy with my eee pc: lightweight, good battery life, durable, and replaceably cheap (for a student).

Somehow the x220 I bought afterward, for speed and one more inch of screen, compromised all those qualities.

MS killed the netbook not Apple. They did this by inducing OEMs to make more powerful (expensive) machines that would run XP. XP didn't work on the first eeepc, for example.

>XP didn't work on the first eeepc, for example.

I always thought that XP would have run fine on the first eeepc and that Linux was chosen to keep the retail price down.

XP became the most common OS on netbooks after Microsoft introduced a special netbook-only lower price for XP.

From wikipedia:

"Newer models added the options of Microsoft Windows operating system, rotating media hard disk drives (HDD) and initially retailed for up to 500 euros."

The PC industry's shitty netbook lines killed the netbook. Apple was just standing there.

standing there indeed, with the smoking gun, the iPad.

Intel in particular had a lot to do with it. For all their talk, they really haven't accomplished much with their Atom line: it's got less than half the IPC of their mainstream architecture and has pretty low clock speeds, and it's been embarrassingly slow about moving to new lithography nodes. (The 22nm Atom has reportedly been delayed to 2014, when Intel's mainstream 22nm chips shipped spring 2012.) On the other hand, Intel refuses to make a sufficiently cheap version of their Core lineup, which is why ultrabooks are so much more expensive and yet most components are still pretty low-quality.

intel likes money. if atoms have lower margins than bigger cpus, then intel will try to make people buy bigger cpus. simple.

I wouldn't say it's "just Apple" or just a product by them. In every case of someone owning a netbook I've seen, it's just too difficult to use. Typing on a tiny keyboard is a nightmare, and running a fully fledged OS just makes the problem worse.

Apple might have accelerated it, but the form factor was terrible, while the price exceeded that of a mid range laptop in several cases.

The keyboards weren't small enough to be completely unusable, but 1024x600 was obviously never going to be good enough. If we'd had today's LCD market back when the netbook fad started, they would have been much more usable machines.

Having owned a netbook, Apple didn't do anything. Netbooks killed themselves. They were really bad products and a worthless compromise anyway you measure it: cramped keyboards, unreliable track pads, processors too slow to watch YouTube videos, poor viewing angles and a screen so small that many websites don't display properly.

Netbooks were a nice thought experiment, but the market was never there. $400 for a tiny poorly-made laptop just to check Facebook, or $600 for a decently-made full-size laptop?

To be fair, netbooks are pretty rough to use, especially for men (finger size on 80% keyboards). They always seemed transitional to me.

What killed the netbook is that nobody ever wanted to buy a second netbook.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com