Who Killed the Netbook? 398
itwbennett writes "Netbooks died the death of a thousand cuts and there were conspirators aplenty with motive, weapons and opportunity. Was the unpopularity of Linux to blame? What about Microsoft and its efforts to kill XP? Ever smarter smartphones certainly played a role, as did the rise of the App Store, and lighter full-featured notebooks. Or maybe it was just that the American consumer wasn't going to be satisfied with technology designed for third-world use. 'In late 2005, the only computer found for $100 was stolen, was dead, or was ancient enough to require Windows 95. A real and functional computer for $100 was a dream, but also made people wonder what sacrifices might need to be made to offer such a comparatively inexpensive machine,' writes Tom Henderson, in an in-depth look at what contributed to the netbook's demise." Before solving the murder mystery, it's worth considering whether the netbook is actually dead.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Partially its the media (Score:5, Insightful)
It was the popularity of Linux that was to blame (Score:0, Insightful)
It was the popularity of Linux that was to blame. By being a wedge of installs of Linux MS couldn't get involved in, it HAD to be quashed.
To fit the restricted Windows OS on, it needed more memory, more disk and a faster CPU.
To pay for that AND the license for windows made it more expensive.
HOWEVER, all the big names in the business ALSO had to sell Windows machines.
Therefore they HAD to see more Windows netbooks.
Therefore the netbooks HAD to become more expensive.
And they therefore became less attractive. Especially when all that extra hardware required more power which turned an 8-12 hour netbook into a tiny 4-6 hour mini-laptop.
Its the price (Score:5, Insightful)
ok, in 2011 show me a netbook for 100$ that is not used, stolen, older than dirt and beat up, or one of those useless CE devices.
The price is what is killing them, they have not changed stats much if at all and after years on the market they have hit an artificially invoked 279$ price point that never seems to drift much. then the question becomes "well do I spend 300$ on a gimpy screen, gimpy keyboard, gimpy ram, video cpu for what turns out to be a darn near 4 year old computer? or do I just go ahead and get that dual core gateway for 50 bucks more
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
The shitty and hacked-up Linux 'distros' which appeared on the first netbooks certainly didn't help. Buggy, slow and lacking in functionality when compared to a clean install of something like Ubuntu. It's almost as if they wanted the bloody things to fail...
Re:Partially its the media (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, netbooks "died" because nobody was spending millions of dollars on advertising and PR trying to convince people that they are still a better alternative to tablets.
Which is sad, because netbooks can still be more useful than tablets depending on what application you're using. The amount of business software available for tablets like the iPad still isn't all that great, and it's a pain in the ass to type anything lengthy on the touch screen.
But, hey, if all you want to do is surf the web and watch a few movies, and tablets are great at that.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
This is kind of like Washington politics. There's only only a limited number real, shoe leather reporters left who can actually find things out; most of the media is reporting on the opinions of other media. How many times can the popular IT press write a breathless article about yet *another* compact laptop which boasts long battery life and low price in exchange for delivering only modest but acceptable performance? The product category might be important, and earn money, but there won't be any new opinions to sell about it until some *real* reporter or technologist does some actual research.
The popular trade press has always been this way. I once *resigned* because my company hired a boss whose sole source of knowledge was from reading IT trade magazines. The company crashed and burned shortly after, thanks to her, which shows you who the market for tech media that runs on the brain-farts of other tech media is.
Now the *un*popular tech trade press, that's a different story. When I was an MIT student, one of the Course 2 (Mech E) guys in the dorm used to get *Compressed Air* magazine which (ironically named I guess) consistently had substantive, well written articles about compressed air technology. Even though it wasn't my field (I couldn't explain the difference between "stress" and "strain" without referring to Wikipedia, which didn't exist back then) I used to look forward to the next issue showing up in the dorm lounge.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. This is pure unadulterated BS. To quote Mark Twain, "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". My question is, why does anybody think the netbook is dead? I've bought two in the last year, the second to replace the first that was stolen. The second was stolen too, and I plan on replacing it as well. When the first netbook was stolen they took my notebook, too, I won't be replacing it. Notebooks are just too big for my purposes, and too expensive to risk theft or damage, but a netbook is small enough to take anywhere, and cheap enough to replace if it's damaged or stolen.
IMO the netbook's only drawback is the lack of an optical drive, but it's easy enough to move the data to a larger computer with a network or thumb drive.
Tablets would be nice if you could attach a keyboard and mouse and had some sort of stand to place them vertically.
Exactly, just look at the MacBook Air and ChromeOS (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. I'll get to the MacBook Air in a minute. But first, I have the following: Droid X running Cyanogen, eMachine Netbook running Ubuntu 11.04, and a Dell desktop running Windows 7 (my newest edition).
The problem I see is that tablets are trying to replace the Netbook (not so much the notebook, which is more of a replacement for desktops). The tablet is not appealing to me, because there really is no gap to fill between my Droid X and my Netbook. My netbook, a 1Ghz Atom with a 250GB HDD (not SSD) is just as powerful as a notebook, just a tad slower (but not much unless you want to play games). But it far outdoes any tablet.
A tablets I've looked at as serious contenders, frankly suck. They are around $700, have low storage memory, must be tethered to a cellular plan, and cannot run anything better than what I already have on my very spacious 4.x" phone screen. My netbook, on the other hand, was $199, has more storage than I'll need in a portable situation, works with Wifi, Cisco VPN (which most phones/tablets don't), and is very compact with the same or larger screen size as most tablets (~10")
For me, an overpriced, underfeatured, cellular locked tablet makes no sense. Oooo, it has a touch screen... big freaking deal! Oooo, I have a keyboard with a netbook... now that's a real consideration for having something in the "gap" between my phone and a desktop. My battery is also much better than any tablet, because I don't need something equivalent to an OLED screen. It's backlit, and I can watch netflix just fine on it.
This same lack of gap is the reason your average power user who must choose between a MacBook Air and an iPad will automatically go with the MacBook (if you were to remove cost from the equation).
I'm not saying I'm against tablets, or necessarily for netbooks. They just make more sense to someone like me. Now, if I wanted to replace my smartphone with a simple feature phone, and also ditch my netbook, then a tablet may fill the new gap left. And besides early adopters, I think that's the real market.
The problem is this: more companies make more money from tablets. The market (after the initial waves of early adopters are saturated) is that group that has an older desktop, a feature phone, and no portable computers. That's the "sweet spot". But, tablet prices are so expensive, that only early adopters and those with large disposable incomes are really taking too them. The fact that only the iPad has had any real success is actually a bad sign for Apple. It is the exception that proves the rule. It shows that those who might go with a cheaper tablet just aren't, and are more apt to by a cheap smartphone. Why this is bad for Apple is that these are people speaking with their wallets saying, "It may be neat, but it's not something I can live without (like a phone), and not willing to shell out the extra money for (like a phone)." It puts the iPad in the position of the MacBook Air, which is to say that it will have a low market saturation, unlike the iPhone. And the iPhone was able to catch those users because A) people feel they need a phone, so they already need a contract and have to pay a significant amount for for anything decent, and B) they see real usability. The middle class, which has already slowed spending on televisions, computers, vacations, etc. see the tablet as a luxury item, and the phone as a necessity.
A netbook, too, is a luxury item. But it is easier for a parent to justify a $199 purchase for school, because it's better than a $2000 laptop or a $700 tablet... and parents (though maybe not cutting edge educators) see the tablet as a toy, not a tool. Netbooks also come with no contract, and that's a deal breaker for most people still struggling in this sluggish economy. And that, the economy, is the reason for Netbooks not being in the news, unless you consider ChromeOS... which might be a stroke of genius for Google to sneak in under the tight budget radar, assuming they can par down the contract costs a GREAT deal.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
We disagree.
-Scandinavia
Price (Score:5, Insightful)
A laptop is one thing and it fills a need. A netbook, when built properly, is another thing and fills a separate need. The key thing that separates them is price (and thus performance). In general, if a netbook is priced over $300, it isn't a netbook - it's now an underpowered laptop.
What killed the netbook? Computer makers suddenly thinking people wanted the netbook to be more than it is and pushing the price above $300.
(As a side note, yet, Microsoft pushing XP onto netbooks, and thus pushing the system requirements up thereby pushing the price up, certainly played a part in it.)
People claiming that tablets (namely the iPad) killed the netbook are failing to realize that the netbook was dead before the iPad came along...