×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

$200 Intel Android Laptops Are Coming

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the race-to-zero dept.

Portables 319

symbolset writes "Outbound Intel CEO Paul Otellini created quite a stir when mentioning that touchscreen laptops would reach a $200 price point. CNET is now reporting in an interview with Intel chief product officer Dadi Perlmutter that these touchscreen laptops will run Android on Intel Atom processors at first. 'Whether Windows 8 PCs hit that price largely depends on Microsoft, he said. "We have a good technology that enables a very cost-effective price point," Perlmutter said. The price of Windows 8 laptops "depends on how Microsoft prices Windows 8. It may be a slightly higher price point." ... Perlmutter didn't specify what the Android notebooks will look like, but it's probable they'll be convertible-type devices. He also noted that he expects the PC market to pick up in the back half of the year and heading into 2014 as new devices become available."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

319 comments

bets? (4, Insightful)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year ago | (#43572279)

Anyone want to bet that Microsoft will price themselves right out of the $200 atom market? I'm betting that $200 will be right about the price point for just the OS, so unless Intel wants to give away their atom touchscreen lappies, they'll remain android, or possibly get a linux option.

Re:bets? (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43572297)

As long as it's not locked down to for example only run Android I'm happy.

Re:bets? (3, Insightful)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | about a year ago | (#43572365)

Ubuntu's Mir server will work with Android SurfaceFlinger drivers, so assuming root can be gained there's instant hardware and graphics support.

Re:bets? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572541)

Maybe this is a stupid question... but why would you not run Android?

Re:bets? (4, Informative)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year ago | (#43572681)

It's not the "not running Android" that's the problem, it's the locking it down that's a problem.

One could argue part of the reason Microsoft is floundering is they chose to be such ass-hats about signed/unsigned code and locking down boot loaders to begin with. At least if they had left it unlocked they would have gotten their "tax" even if they buyer chose to run Linux/Android, like my netbook.

Don't forget Ubuntu for phones is coming and there's some Firefox/Mozilla OS in the works too. Perhaps someone might want to experiment with those?

Re:bets? (4, Funny)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year ago | (#43572703)

One could argue part of the reason Microsoft is floundering is they chose to be such ass-hats about signed/unsigned code and locking down boot loaders to begin with.

One could argue that, but one would be talking out of one's ass in doing so.

Re:bets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572687)

Why would you?

Re:bets? (2)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43572697)

Regular desktop Linux has the familiar multiwindow interface. Android is a full-screen app switching interface. These devices can run the full screen OS with multiple windows through multitasking. The answer to your question is that Android will soon support multiwindows, and do away with the need for your question.

Re:bets? (4, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#43572807)

why would you not run Android?

Android is still more thin client than computer, with lots of blinking lights for the kids... It's pretty great on a phone, where you want to look up simple information and play back your musis, but it's not a real desktop OS.

With Linux installed, I can do all the video and audio encoding I could want, not to mention being able to play back ANY video and audio formats. I can install GIMP and Blender and do high-end 2D and 3D graphics manipulation right on the device, not remote'd into a real computer, and not limited to MSPaint-type image manipulation options, but real work, right on the device.

And Linux is also a better thin client... Android RDP options are famously limited to a single host unless you pay up, and sadly, NX Client still isn't available for Android, so no GUI access to Linux systems.

Re:bets? (3, Interesting)

ickleberry (864871) | about a year ago | (#43572829)

I am probably one of the greatest Linux fanboys around and I run Linux on my desktop and laptop and server. I have also owned several Android mobile phones

But .. Sorry lads I think Android is a crap operating system. If I ended up with one of these laptops I'd like to be able to change OS like I could with an ordinary (non ARM) Windows-tax-paid laptop

Re:bets? (4, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#43572997)

Well obviously this Intel Android Laptop is not targeted at you. Everyone knows exactly who it will be targeted at, Android phone users who want to do a little bit more and need the keyboard and screen interface and of course tossed in with an Android phone contract, a pretty good and could be a well targeted sweetener, with an interface they are already accustomed to. What will be interesting is how much data storage expansion the device allows for and how readily an Android phone can be hooked up to it to transfer data and charge the phone.

Re:bets? (3, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43572953)

I like the desktop UI of Linux systems so I buy Android gear and put Linux (usually but not always Ubuntu) on it. It's gear. It does what I say. If you select gear that does what you demand it is that simple. Sometimes I like the wider Linux ecosystem better. Having the choice is nice.

Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43573007)

Between a douche and a turd sandwich.

Re:bets? (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43572969)

Because you want your computer to be independent from the cloud?
Because you want to do things which are not available on Android?
Because you just want a desktop interface on your laptop, instead of a phone interface?
Because at some point, someone might unveil a competing OS which is vastly better than what exists now, and you might want to switch your laptop to that?

Re:bets? (1)

fido_dogstoyevsky (905893) | about a year ago | (#43572979)

Maybe this is a stupid question... but why would you not run Android?

Because the software I want to run needs a "proper" Linux install.

If it's possible to install alternative OSes (ie a flavour of Linux) then I'll be a customer since I need (not want, need*) a Linux tablet for my day job. If it isn't possible I'll keep looking elsewhere.

*Having very limited success in getting my 'droid to run Linux.

Re:bets? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43572985)

1) You have a competing platform like iOS, and porting your apps to that platform validates and supports that platform, contrary to your interests. 2) You have a competing platform like Windows/Office and can't figure out how to leverage mobile.

Re:bets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572299)

Yep.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20130426PD202.html

Re:bets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572407)

Consider you can get Windows 8 Retail for 100, no I think the bulk OEM price is probably closer to 15$.

Re:bets? (4, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43572409)

PC manufacturers won't bother - the $200 price point was not appealing the first time around. There was absolutely no money to be made then, just like now. Unless Intel is shovelling parts at the OEMs for free, there's no way.

Hell, before the iPad came out, you want to know what happened to the $300 netbooks? They became $400 and $500 netbooks! The $300 ones were basically clearances or older models that haven't moved because they were tiny 7" screens or other compromises that people didn't like.

Even Chromebooks are compromised to get them to that price point, mostly by going ARM.

At this point, the question of $200 will depend on what crap they can cut in order to meet the price - most likely you'll see the return of crappy screens (ye olde 800x480), tiny RAM (2GB or so if you're lucky), and miniscule hard drives (8GB SSDs). All of which would make a Windows 8 experience pretty terrible.

A $200 retail laptop would have to have $150 tops in parts (the $50 is eaten as retailer profit, manufacturer profit, shipping and warehousing, etc). A cheap spinning rust hard drive is probably $50 for 500GB, way too expensive. 8GB of SSD storage from a thumbdrive, say, is cheap - $5. Then there's RAM, CPU, battery, and all the other pieces which quickly eat up that BOM cost.

Re:bets? (5, Insightful)

JonBoy47 (2813759) | about a year ago | (#43572471)

Interestingly, Google is currently selling an Acer Chromebook, using a dual-core Celeron chip and 320GB hard drive for $199 retail. It would appear the hardware would be Windows-capable if you wanted to bother. The first round of $200 netbooks flopped because they didn't change the paradigm. As Steve Jobs said in the iPad launch keynote "They're just cheap laptops". It didn't help that mainstream consumers had never heard of, and were wary of Linux. OEM's fixed this problem by adding Windows, which also required more memory, rust-based storage, a bigger battery to power it all and a larger casing to fit it all in. By the time this Windows tax was baked into the price of these second generation netbooks, the price was within spitting distance of a "real" notebook. Mainstream customers just ponied up the extra $50 to get a real laptop with a much bigger screen, decent keyboard and a DVD burner.

Not in DNA (4, Insightful)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43573037)

As Steve Jobs said in the iPad launch keynote "They're just cheap laptops"

Except the quote was this ""They're slow, they have low quality displays and they run clunky old PC software. They're not better than a laptop at anything, they're just cheaper: they're just cheap laptops."

The new generation of $200 laptops are fast, high quality displays...and run Android.

In context of price mentioned in this quote, Android has already surpassed Apple in the tablet market by producing better value tablets. Perhaps price is something Jobs should not have dismissed so easily.

Ironically younger Jobs agrees with me "What ruined Apple was not growth They got very greedy Instead of following the original trajectory of the original vision, which was to make the thing an appliance and get this out there to as many people as possible they went for profits. They made outlandish profits for about four years. What this cost them was their future. What they should have been doing is making rational profits and going for market share.”"

Re:bets? (5, Interesting)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year ago | (#43572657)

...crappy screens (ye olde 800x480), tiny RAM (2GB or so if you're lucky), and miniscule hard drives (8GB SSDs)...hard drive is probably $50 for 500GB...

With a polished+supported OS and an 80GB drive, at $200 it'd work for a lot of people, either as a primary system if they're poor or a secondary/work-only one if they're not. I'm speaking firsthand from my single-core 2GHz Thinkpad T43 after finally upgrading it to 2GB of RAM today; it has a 60GB hard drive, 1024x768 14" screen, runs SimplyMepis 11 Linux (currently using 4.8G + 1G swap), and does everything I'd like it to do.

My laptop's specs give a good idea of what a manufacturer could get away with in creating a polished Linux-based laptop. The OS and most Linux programs don't take up much room, so even an 8-12G SSD (or 30GB HD to be generous) would be fine and a SD/microSD card reader would then allow the user to take on the cost of additional storage based on his/her needs. If the timing's just right, the company could take advantage of others pushing towards super-high resolutions by buying the WXGA or XGA screens at a huge discount.

I don't know the OS costs, so it's hard to comment much on them -- but there are at least a few computer repair/building services out there that sell PCs they've set up with very newbie-friendly Linux distros and have had a lot of very satisfied/repeat customers, which suggests it's possible to pull it off; seeking out those successful geeks and finding out their "secrets" might be the wisest approach. The most important thing there, I believe, would be to ensure the customers know that the computer wouldn't run Windows, so there's no confusion/shock when they go to use it (as with the netbooks a few years ago); hell, with word out now that Windows 8 is a giant clusterfuck, it shouldn't be hard to market the fact that the OS isn't Windows as a desirable thing.

Re:bets? (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year ago | (#43572939)

Those $200 netbooks were very popular, they are basically what started the whole netbook fad...
The reason they went up in price was because they went up in spec, primarily in order to run windows. Once they were powerful enough to run windows, they were no longer cheap and became considerably heavier too, which took away the original benefits of a netbook.

Re:bets? (4, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43572423)

Office doesn't run on Android.

That means both of Microsoft's cash cows will have been bypassed. They'll HAVE to respond in some way.

Re:bets? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43572787)

Not really. The executive suite can dismiss this as a fad, like they did iOS and Android. They can pretend this is not happening, put their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la".

It won't end well for them, but they can and will do that.

Re:bets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572543)

$200 for just the OS? wtf? Its been known for ages now that Windows costs ~$50 for OEMs. There are many rumors that Microsoft is lowering prices for cheap Windows 8 tablets as well.

I still don't want touch screen (5, Interesting)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | about a year ago | (#43572551)

I don't want a touch screen. How about saving the touch screen and making a $150 laptop? The touch screen is just unwanted extra cost. I have a hard enough time keeping the screen clean without people intentionally smearing their grubby fingers across it. It's definitely not anything I want to pay extra for.

Netbooks are quite useful. I'd also like to see more ARM units with long battery life. The netbook form has more room for battery than a tablet does so there really aren't any excuses any more for not having 10 - 12 hours of battery. That's enough to get through a full day at a conference or long flight with transfers.

Re:I still don't want touch screen (2, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year ago | (#43572983)

Alas, microsoft killed any hope for such laptops... Once you have hardware capable of running windows, you need a much larger battery if you want decent runtime, more cooling to accommodate the hotter running components, larger storage etc.

A small laptop running a non crippled linux distro would be awesome, and would sell well if properly marketed, but it seems noone is willing to push such a device.

It has been said for years that a linux laptop wouldn't sell, and yet most of the reasons cited have been debunked already for instance:

a, it wont sell without windows - people are happy to access the internet on ipads, android devices etc, 99% of people don't need windows and are better off without it.
b, people wont like it if they cant buy boxed software in a store - linux distributions have always had a repository model, supposedly users wouldn't like this and would rather install software from optical media, but apple and google have proven this to be false - users actually prefer the convenience of a single place to get software and having it updated in a central location is extremely beneficial for security too.
c, users wont like if they buy peripherals and they end up not working - you cant buy random peripherals for an ipad either, you just take a bunch of existing peripherals which you know work out of the box with linux and resell them as "accessories" designed to work with your device. Very few people will just buy random junk anyway, they will look for accessories marketed as being *for* the device they already have.

You just need to sell decent hardware, at a decent price point, with a non crippled linux distribution and some level of marketing.

Android uses touch screen (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43572987)

I don't want a touch screen. How about saving the touch screen and making a $150 laptop?

Ignoring that the Android OS has advantages when using a touchscreen. I think you need to look for your saving elsewhere. We live in Bazarro world where my (relevantly) expensive low resolution and DPI touchless laptop cost's more than my relatively *cheap* touchsceen high DPI tablet. The bought a whole tablet yesterday for $100. I'd be surprised if the keyboard would cost $50.

Re:bets? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year ago | (#43572689)

It's okay, they won't exist anyway. Every time you see a "$xyz (sillily cheep) abcs are coming" story on slashdot, the price shown is the price that some engineer has decided they might be able to get the BoM down to. The result is that even if they meet that BoM, they'll still charge 50% more to make a profit, and most of the time they don't meet the BoM, so it ends up being 100% more expensive.

Re:bets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572701)

wtf you talking about? windows to big OEMs is like $30, tops.. then add the crapware that OEMs get paid to put on systems, and the net result is the OEM *gets paid* to use windows.

considering the work needed to customize, and provide support/updates for, an android install for something like this (vs windows, which is essentially load-n-go), the net retail price of android vs windows hardware of this sort should be very close to one another. and even if windows cost $50 more, they'll sell 100x as well as android versions -- that has already been shown in the netbook market: windows ones cost more but sold far better than linux ones which had skyhigh return rates.

Re:bets? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year ago | (#43573011)

Windows ones sold more because they were heavily marketed, while linux ones just sat on the shelf... Also the linux distros present on most of these netbooks were crap (and no two manufacturers had the same distro).

With a decent distro, and some decent marketing to explain the benefits a lot of people will actually choose linux just like they chose an ipad or android device.

Re:bets? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | about a year ago | (#43572743)

I'm sure Microsoft will offer something like Windows 7 Starter again if it looks like Android is getting too much market share. How successful that will be remains to be seen.

Re:bets? (2)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#43572775)

Anyone want to bet that Microsoft will price themselves right out of the $200 atom market? I'm betting that $200 will be right about the price point for just the OS,

Will NEVER happen. Microsoft will PAY manufacturers to take their OS, should they feel threatened. This is what happened with NetBooks, where XP was given away to stop the flood of cheap Linux netbooks. Manufacturers also got Microsoft advertising dollars in the exchange, to boot, and could get a few dollars more from preloading crapware like Norton/McAfee, so Linux options completely disappeared.

Re:bets? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572827)

But this time the manufacturer is Google. Why would they be interested in Windows or MS marketing dollars?

Crapware... (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#43572811)

Anyone want to bet that Microsoft will price themselves right out of the $200 atom market? I'm betting that $200 will be right about the price point for just the OS, so unless Intel wants to give away their atom touchscreen lappies, they'll remain android, or possibly get a linux option.

Depends how much crapware they can shovel onto the Windows laptop. The crapware vendors donate a buck or so for each installation, in the expectation that some of them will result in fifty or so bucks back, and maybe annual fees or future upgrades. It's one of the reasons there is little difference between the price of a PC with Windows and a PC with no OS (sometimes the Windows PC is even cheaper). Our strategy has been to just wipe the disk and install Xubuntu; no problems, and no crapware.

They already have (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43572895)

Minimum install base for W8 is 16GB and 1GB RAM. We all know that means to be useful it needs 32GB storage and 2GB RAM. Just those two things put them out of the $200 market already. We don't even have to look at their poor showing in developers and app ecosystems.

Re:bets? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43573009)

If Windows was free then $200 would be about enough to put the Windows OS devices over Android devices.. That makes the real value of a Windows install equal -$200. Make your own inferences from there.

In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572283)

Intel says "Fuck you Microsoft and fuck Windows 8".

Re:In other words... (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#43572291)

I'd be interesting to see how Google deals with this.

It's going to compete directly with their ChromeOS offerings but at the same time... it's based on their other, more successful product: Android.

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572343)

My guess is they'll "deal with it" by merging Android and Chrome.

I'd further suggest that it's already been "dealt" with, and the laptops are going to be unveiled at Google I/O.

Re:You can already get under $200 androids here... (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year ago | (#43572673)

But there have been $200 Android tablets for years; the challenge being discussed is to create a functional sub-$200 laptop.

Re:In other words... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572625)

They said that before (by adopting Adroid) and MS responded by Windows RT.

Re:In other words... (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#43572693)

No, they are saying, "You know, Toots, you'd be quite attractive... if you lost a little weight."

It's an early public salvo in the negotiations with Microsoft over the unit price of Win8-for-Atom.

(Similar thing happened after Vista, with netbook makers chosing Linux. Microsoft responded with the cheap Win7 Starter Edition, and Linux fell off the netbook market. I'd expect something similar here. And government departments have floated the idea of a major open-source roll-out, immediately getting a lower price offer from Microsoft. The benefit of locking in the market outweighs the cost of offering an occasional below-cost loss leader.)

Re:In other words... (2)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | about a year ago | (#43572825)

You're probably right.

But I'm surprised that we don't see more maneuvers like this. If Microsoft's reaction is so reliable, I'd expect a string of news like "General Motors eyeing Linux", "Walmart checking out RedHat" and so on. Usually, big companies are not shy about squeezing a supplier.

Re:In other words... (4, Interesting)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year ago | (#43572857)

Uhmm, General Motors, Wal-Mart and pretty much all financial institutions already use Red Hat. Windows is a niche product running on about 1 billion devices. The other 100 billion devices run Linux.

Andoid and not Chrome (1)

high_rolla (1068540) | about a year ago | (#43572295)

Interesting. I would have thought Chrome would have been a better fit for the laptop but I guess Intel is keen to push Touch and Android is much better suited to that end.

I wonder too if this is a ploy to encourage MS to lower its prices too?

To me it looks like Intel is pushing touch as a must have feature to try and get everyone to upgrade but I see it mostly as a fad myself (kinda like 3D TV). It's kinda interesting but ultimately not upgrade worthy.

Though if someone implemented it in such a way that it really did add value then I would be happy to change my mind.

Re:Andoid and not Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572405)

It does not only encourage MS to lower its prices, it also makes them sell whatever Windows version you want.
Microsoft discontinued XP. Asus: we want $5 XP's, or we sell our netbooks with Ubuntu. Microsoft called there bluff, Asus sold plenty of Ubuntu netbooks without even trying hard, Microsoft caved in and sold them there almost free XP's.
Dell litters the world with "We recommend Windows 8", but will sell any Windows version that makes there number of sales go up.

android over windows (4, Interesting)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43572309)

Hmmm... android winning... windows dying... Is it finally the year of linux on the laptop? (even if it's an intel androidy laptop)
.
I thought that the sub-$300 laptops were declared dead last year and at the beginning of this year. Are people finally realizing that holding a tablet upright isn't all that it's cracked up to be?
:>)
And also that {unbundling a touchscreen laptop and selling its parts individually as a touchscreen tablet + case cover + attachable keyboard + carryalong recharger which ends up costing twice the cost of the comparable bundled together laptop in the firstplace} is untenable in a market-place where people are still interested in saving money.

"game changer" (3, Insightful)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year ago | (#43572317)

depends on how Microsoft prices Windows 8.

You 6-digit username kids might not remember this, but once upon a time, a comment like this could sink your whole product, or whole company...Windows was it for PC. (imagine Dell or HP saying this in '98)

Now, it's like, "Yeah, Microsoft can come to the party, but they'll have to bring their own booze"

I deem this Android/Intel laptop to be *the* game changer that causes even mainstream media to realize M$ dying quickly.

I guess we'll see...

Re:"game changer" (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43572327)

You know that Apple released a "windowed graphical user interface" before Microsoft did, right? And so did MIT on X with X windows on Project Athena. And that Microsoft Windows was the latecomer to the party, just like it was late to realize that TCP/IP stack would be useful to have available to the Operating System.

Re:"game changer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572369)

but Microsoft leveraged their MS-DOS monopoly position. They don't have that luxury in this market.

Re:"game changer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572371)

The challenge will remain to create truly significant business applications for Android. I find myself today using my MS Surface rather than my Asus Android with keyboard. Just having Office make this better than Android. The office-like apps on Android all suck.

Re:"game changer" (4, Funny)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#43572397)

M$ dying quickly.

Yeah, and kid$ like you have been $aying this $ince '98, too. *Yawn*

Re:"game changer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572505)

" Yeah, and kid$ like you have been $aying this $ince '98, too. *Yawn*"

Insightful? LOL!

Yeah, wonderful Windows 98 with blue screens.

Enjoy your black box OS with One Microsoft Way's root account and proprietary software!

Oh, I meant Micro$oft. How's that Zune doing, btw?

Re:"game changer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572635)

"M$ dying quickly.

Yeah, and kid$ like you have been $aying this $ince '98, too. *Yawn*"

we've been saying that for far longer. some diseases take longer for a cure, we're still working on microsoft and windows.

Re:"game changer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572499)

You 6-digit username kids might not remember this, but once upon a time, a comment like this could sink your whole product, or whole company...Windows was it for PC. (imagine Dell or HP saying this in '98)

These are people from Intel. What could Microsoft possibly do to Intel in those days? Who else could make the volume of chips for Windows machines?

Re:"game changer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572617)

depends on how Microsoft prices Windows 8.

You 6-digit username kids might not remember this, but once upon a time, a comment like this could sink your whole product, or whole company...Windows was it for PC. (imagine Dell or HP saying this in '98)

Now, it's like, "Yeah, Microsoft can come to the party, but they'll have to bring their own booze"

I deem this Android/Intel laptop to be *the* game changer that causes even mainstream media to realize M$ dying quickly.

I guess we'll see...

Dying?? WTF, go read their revenue GROWTH and profit GROWTH for the last quarter before you say moronic things. To be dying their growth would have to at least be stagnant, preferably decreasing, hint IT ISN'T. So far android laptops have failed, the chromebooks have sold less than the disaster that was surface tablets.

Death of Windows (3, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43572925)

Dying?? WTF, go read their revenue GROWTH and profit GROWTH for the last quarter before you say moronic things. To be dying their growth would have to at least be stagnant, preferably decreasing, hint IT ISN'T. So far android laptops have failed, the chromebooks have sold less than the disaster that was surface tablets.

IBM doesn't sell many computers either. ;). Microsoft has had revenue growth despite three quarter of dropping windows computer sales, on the back of raised priced in server live, an EOL console live subscriptions, making more monet from online office...instead of offline office....hold the bus three quarters of dropping sales.

Interestingly if we look at Amazon...the largest online retailer. http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/565108/ref=sr_bs_1 [amazon.com] A chromebook is *still* the bestselling laptop....I couldn't see the surface in the top 100!?

Perhaps eliminating Secure Boot? (3, Interesting)

CaptQuark (2706165) | about a year ago | (#43572347)

Because Microsoft requires certified Windows 8 hardware to be shipped with secure boot feature enabled by default, Intel might be interested in designing a computer that isn't purpose built for Microsoft to control.

Intel might be building a computer that gives other operating systems a test bed to innovate and create something new. A multifunction laptop/tablet that can run Android, Chrome, Linux, or Firefox OS as the user desires.

That explains a lot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572351)

Why the lights are on in Redmond and there are chairs being seen coming out the flying everywhere.

Intel has to do this... (5, Insightful)

JonBoy47 (2813759) | about a year ago | (#43572385)

Despite their efforts, Intel hasn't significantly extended past their position as the CPU supplier for Windows PC's. Which, in a world where potential customers are increasingly buying low cost, non-Windows ARM-based devices, is a problem. Intel must extend into this market or face a long slow slide to irrelevancy as the world migrates to mobile and ARM processors. It doesn't help that Windows system requirements haven't increased since Vista came out in 2007. Users have no reason to upgrade working PC's, or buy more than the bare minimum when circumstance forces a purchase.

Intel can fire sale Atom chips, but they can't achieve price parity with competing non-Windows ARM-based devices without ditching the Windows tax.

Re:Intel has to do this... (1)

JonBoy47 (2813759) | about a year ago | (#43572413)

Case in point, my mom is now the proud owner of a Asus Vivobook. Her circa-2008 Dell Inspiron was, by her own account, still more than adequate to her needs. She only bought the new laptop because the hard drive in the old one died. She seriously contemplated just getting an iPad. The only thing that stopped her was my convincing her that using an iPad as your primary device is still a bridge too far...

Re:Intel has to do this... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43572479)

My sister is an Apple fan, so my mom is now using an iPad as her *only* (not just primary) device. She hasn't had an issue so far, other than she had to re-buy some programs she had with equivelent apps.

Re:Intel has to do this... (3, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year ago | (#43572695)

My sister is an Apple fan, so my mom is now using an iPad as her *only* (not just primary) device. She hasn't had an issue so far, other than she had to re-buy some programs she had with equivelent apps.

But that wouldn't work for OP. He had to convince his mother that his use case and hers were identical. Hasn't dealt with his Oedipal issues yet? I dunno, but the fact that all that some people need is a tablet is a foreign concept to many on this site.

Re:Intel has to do this... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43572869)

If it doesn't do everything for everyone, it's not worth anyone having any of them, right? If I'm in the 99% where it does all I want it to do, I shouldn't get it because there exists someone out there that it doesn't work for. Burn them all, and the terrorists who buy them.

iPad the loser tablet. (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43572885)

My sister is an Apple fan, so my mom is now using an iPad as her *only* (not just primary) device. She hasn't had an issue so far, other than she had to re-buy some programs she had with equivelent apps.

Your topic being off-topic it is worth noting in context of this article that Android are now outselling Apple on tablets, and if your sister/mom has need for a keyboard in future its probably better to invest in Android.

Re:iPad the loser tablet. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43572999)

Why? I have a number of coworkers that use bluetooth keyboards with iDevices. And a number that use them (bluetooth keyboards) with Windows and Android tablets. My mom typed 3 WPM with a keyboard. She needs one just long enough to type a 2-sentence email or Skype "are you there" before calling.

And you have an odd definition of "off topic" in that any reply (even a topical one) to an off topic comment is off topic. I was responding to the "I convinced her to not get an iPad because I believe it inferior for a only device" comment, and if I'm off topic, then he was flame bait or a troll.

Re:Intel has to do this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572809)

Actually, what Intel always has been doing and is doing here as well is commoditizing the market, so that in the end they are the only ones to actually make money from it.
This part of the reason for little innovation in the PC market, due to Intel taking more than about 80% of the profits there is little anyone else can do.
This time the opponent Intel wants to push into selling just-above-cost seems to be Microsoft, if they manage Intel might be able to get to something like having 90% of the profits of the whole PC sales chain.
Of course the question is how many manufacturers will fall for it, fighting with their suppliers over the 10% profit crumbs that Intel leaves them when ARM as an alternative leaves them a far larger part of the profits.

Re:Intel has to do this... (3, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year ago | (#43573039)

Intel are now facing the same issues the highend RISC vendors faced in the 90s...
Having the fastest processors available isn't enough, it wasn't for Alpha, PPC or MIPS and it wont be for Intel. Cheaper processors may be slower, but they sell in much larger volume, cost a lot less, use less power and are still adequate for people's needs.

Intel to compete against Chinese $9 ARM chips? (3, Insightful)

citizenr (871508) | about a year ago | (#43572425)

Bitch please, enough of those bad jokes.
$200 Android tablets use $9-20 ARM A9 dual-quad core SOCs. How is Intel going to compete with that? Give chips for free and make it up in volume?

Re:Intel to compete against Chinese $9 ARM chips? (1)

nzac (1822298) | about a year ago | (#43572461)

Atoms are still comparable in price, its an issue but not the major one. They probably have spare old fab tech to make these.
The main problem with this is that A15s are more powerful than atoms, both absolute and per watt. Also, the graphics in these is likely to be terrible to top it off.

Re:Intel to compete against Chinese $9 ARM chips? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572769)

No, pricing is terrible. Check ark.intel.com and look at the atom processors. The cheapest is $20. Pretty good deal, right? Unfortunately that's only $3 cheaper than Apple's A5X according to isuppli. Aso, the cheapest atom is ony 26 mm2. Extremely tiny. About 20-25% as small as the Apple's processors in ipads. Intel is not going to be making much money on Atoms. Priced too high and volume drops. Priced competitivey with ARMs and they will get ARM-like profits.

Intel's only hope is if Windows succeed in tablets.

call me interested (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43572427)

200$ for a tablet that will not potentially suck with a windows CE OS and a Pentium era CPU, ...with a keyboard ?

and a wife in college?

maybe sold, if it replaces my 10 inch fujitsu lifebook running w2k and office 2000

Android a success (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43572877)

200$ for a tablet that will not potentially suck with a windows CE OS and a Pentium era CPU, maybe sold, if it replaces my 10 inch fujitsu lifebook running w2k and office 2000

Apart from the obvious. Windows CE was awful...badly received and in any way a joke when compared to Android. Even Microsoft put a bullet in that horse (Although its amusing that what they replace it with is more unpopular)

The reality is these machines are placed as direct replacements to windows Laptops.

Alternatively... (2)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year ago | (#43572437)

... pay the same for a 2 year old second hand laptop with far better specs all round. Its the same deal as with cars - if you don't mind using something thats already had someone elses grubby hands on it you can get a LOT of bang for your buck.

Except you can't (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43572847)

... pay the same for a 2 year old second hand laptop with far better specs all round. Its the same deal as with cars - if you don't mind using something thats already had someone elses grubby hands on it you can get a LOT of bang for your buck.

Ignoring the fact that you are comparing a second hand machine to a new one!? Or that Windows is runs badly on the same hardware. There is a massive drop of interest in Windows there have been 5 articles here in the past week, people want Android...they don't want Windows. The fact of equivalent machine with Android is cheaper than the Windows one id a benefit to everyone but Microsoft.

ebay netbooks with android (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572451)

look at these

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Google-Android-4-0-MID-10-inch-Netbook-with-Webcam-1GB-Ram-4GB-Memory-/350753904645?pt=Laptops_Nov05&hash=item51aa8fd805

But I thought that netbooks were dead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572475)

Or at least that's what the pundits has been saying. I'm assuming they're not making a laptop with a full-size screen for $200, so this is in essence going to be a netbook with a detachable keyboard. For $200. If they don't add any silly barriers to installing Debian on it, I'm very interested.

Except they have been rebadged (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43572835)

Or at least that's what the pundits has been saying.

Except the tradition market was killed off to preserve the Windows Monopoly, and the higher priced laptops. Ironically simply handing the more mobile market to tablets...Giving both ARM and Android (oooh Google) a massive window (giggle) of opportunity (at least they Killed off another GNU/Linux opportunity).

Although its a guilty secret of PC industry that Surface/MacBook are are simply overpriced netbooks. The reality is https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/dk1aiW4JjHd [google.com] this is Linux on Chromebooks. It shows the future of Debian looking very exciting.

Does not amount to anything (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#43572481)

People who think this means anything are forgetting one thing - it's Android but not ARM.

So it's going to have approximately ZERO software out of the gate. Even the Chromebook has a vastly greater capability in the near term compared to any Intel Android device.

Yes you could probably just simply re-compile any Android app and add Atom support. But who is going to realistically do that?

Re:Does not amount to anything (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572523)

Intel already has arm emulation on android and the performance is quite ok.
In theory any android app with native code built for arm should run on an Atom android box.

Re:Does not amount to anything (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572533)

No most Android software is written entirely in Java so will run on these machine just fine.

Love Android on ARM (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43572789)

Ignoring all the obvious fact that Android runs on Intel...and has done for a long time, and had already several phones and cheap ones too. Intel will offer *binary* compatibility of desktop applications.

Although I agree with you, I would love to see the rise of the Android Laptops, Which will have their own benefits including price and battery Life.

Remember Intel and the MID (1)

jphamlore (1996436) | about a year ago | (#43572511)

Remember when just a few years ago Intel was pushing that one of the futures of mobile computing were MIDs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Internet_device [wikipedia.org] I think Apple and a few other companies had a lot better execution for creating devices that consumers actually wanted and were willing to pay for ...

Except Microsoft killed it. (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43572757)

Remember when just a few years ago Intel was pushing that one of the futures of mobile computing were MIDs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Internet_device [wikipedia.org]

I think Apple and a few other companies had a lot better execution for creating devices that consumers actually wanted and were willing to pay for ...

In reality the natural evolution of the MID rolled around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N9 [wikipedia.org] it was considered far superior to anything Apple at the time, it was simply killed as part of the Elop turing Nokia into a windows phone. In fact the Lumia range is a crippled version of the N9. In context of this Article Apple (well your post anyway) have long since given away their part in the future of Mobile computing. Apple should be leading this charge not google, not defending its shrinking profit (margins), but Apple are followers now.

Why not Ubuntu? (2)

thue (121682) | about a year ago | (#43572581)

Why not Ubuntu instead of Android, to get a more full-featured laptop?

Android doesn't even have official printer support.

Re:Why not Ubuntu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572631)

Because it had the opportunity for more than a decade and it did not go anywhere beyond a few percent market share. People don't want the messy, complex, always changing Linux distributions.

Ubuntu is a success!? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43572729)

Ignoring that Ubuntu is a success. Your question is the meme When will Linux be successful on the Desktop? The answer to most of us is obvious who see than Microsoft has no competitors left. Even if it backstabs its customers and manufactures causing a loss of 14% of Sales. It still celebrates its best quarter ever...and almost 80% Gross Profit Margin. In short because of Microsofts Abusive Monopoly or simply that it exists. The right question is why Android on the Desktop? This is Linus on Chrome (I know its not Android but the points are the same) https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/dk1aiW4JjHd [google.com] yet its a massive opportunity. The reason is Google (and Apple although they don't have a desire to compete!?) sidestepped Microsoft and captured (More) Mobile computing, with a new breed of easy to use computing (or old client server computing depending on your age). Android alone is set to overtake Windows this year!!. These companies are so large that Microsoft itself cannot bully or bribe them, and Android is a popular product with both end customers and manufacturers.

...but again Linux on the Desktop is continuing to grow, its just the Desktop is not sexy right now.

Re:Why not Ubuntu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572981)

Because of Apps.

Windows has mostly beaten all competitors because of the perception that Linux has no interesting applications. But everyone knows that there are thousands of useful games and apps for Android already. So even though Ubuntu is a "better" OS for a laptop, the application support for Android would cause many people to prefer it. Frankly, for commercial apps (e..g online banking, etc.) Android really does beat Linux in support right now. It even beats Chrome, for the same reason.

Android has no shell (1, Interesting)

X10 (186866) | about a year ago | (#43572833)

I am an Android app developer. But I won't buy a laptop with Android.
In linux, and even on Windows, you can open a shell and have access to the OS of your computer. Android doesn't have such a thing. Which means, you can use your Android laptop only in the way the vendor intended you to. You have access to settings only through the UI, which is, to the settings that the vendor allows you to change. I would buy an Android laptop only if I can get a shell with it that gives me access to the full OS.

Re:Android has no shell (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572963)

There are loads of Android shell programs, all free. Just go to the Play store and download one. You still won't have root-level access, unless you've rooted your device, but that's by design.

So a lousy reason.

Add another platform to the test suite. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43573079)

Awe crap. Atom? Seriously? Fuck. Don't get me wrong, I do still write some machince code in hex, and ASM code too (for fun, a 'hobby' OS from scratch project -- when I need to blow off steam from BS in high level languages, I can cuddle right up to the warm CPU and whisper sweet nopcodes in its ears...) -- for that x86-64 is great, but from a practical perspective x86 and friends are bloated and less efficient than ARM. ARM can be licensed by anyone, and it's trimmed down and efficient. Geared for compilers, not overly cluttered with useless instructions you've got to emulate. I mean, under the hood it's all microcode, would it hurt to use a better API?

I would love to jump in and say how languages and chipsets don't matter because at the end of the day we're running highlevel code with abstractions atop them to insulate us from the underpinnings... But that's a fallacy. The truth is that I'll be writing my high level code once then testing it everywhere, on each platform, then making optimisations around bottlenecks -- business as usual. I experience less problems and fewer new bottlenecks in code compiled and executed (even JIT) across platforms with the same instruction sets. Completely ignoring the hardware is a sin, platform independence is a fine goal, but ultimately an illusion.

Come on Intel. x86 was great when we had to write op-codes by hand, but that's not the case anymore. Let's move on. x86 was so pervasive for so long because of the binary compatibility of applications. Take a hint from your own business -- Android is a new playground. It's time to adopt ARM and kick everyone's asses with your bad-ass fabrication tech. Otherwise, when we get down to the nuts and volts, your more complex chipset will always be less efficient than a more streamlined chipset could be, and on cheap Android systems, efficiency counts again.

I've got some ARM optimized native code in some of my Android code where needed. Yep, I've included a compatible bytecode version for platform 'independence', and that unoptimized crap is what'll execute on your Atom chip because the tiny fraction of market share of Android that's powered by Atom isn't enough to warrant me re-writing specific code just for it. In otherwords: You're pissing away your amazing feats in engineering just because of the BS instruction set -- My apps will run worse on a similarly spec'd Atom (or x86 desktop CPU -- yep, I multi-boot w/ an Android x86 port). I mean, Android is a new platform with new applications -- You don't have to be tied to x86 opcodes anymore!

Is it just a pride thing? Hell, if so, then come up with an even better set of instructions than x86(-64) or ARM and blow everyone away. No, Itanium wasn't it, besides HP originated that... Come on, I know you can do better than this -- but you keep trying to prove me wrong.

Oh, wait. Nevermind. I see the Microsofties you mentioned there. So, Android is basically just a threat to get a better volume license deal from MS? Android is a bargaining chip? You don't care if it runs apps like shite and you're actually hoping Windows will seem faster by comparrison to drive sales? Sad times...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...