$200 Intel Android Laptops Are Coming

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."

Comments

bets?

[waddgodd]

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?

[JonBoy47]

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.

Re:bets?

[evilviper]

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?

[Bert64]

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?

[maxwell demon]

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?

[SuricouRaven]

Except that selling tablets isn't about just selling hardware. It's about selling an ecosystem. Google doesn't make their Android money by selling licenses to the OS: They make it off the Play store, and off of the other services (Advertising, maps, search) that Android strongly encourages users to use.

Microsoft wants to copy the success of Apple and Google in mobile, but that business model depends upon maintaining control of the device post-sale. If people buy a Windows tablet but don't actually run Windows RT/8 on it, then Microsoft loses all the post-sale revenue - the main source of income from the devices.

It's much the same situation as with games consoles: The consoles themselves are sold often at a loss, and the money made back by charging publishers a per-game fee to release games for the console. This can only work if there is some way to lock down the consoles not to run unsigned code, otherwise the publishers would simply release their games and not pay the console manufacturers a cut.

Re:bets?

[rtfa-troll]

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

I don't think the code signing is directly screwing Microsoft, but it's part of an element of 'customer hatred' that really shows the way they are going. We all know how development works. You choose to do one feature or another. Code signing the way Microsoft chose it, has almost no customer benefits and plenty of long term customer negatives in terms of reducing competition and your own freedom to fix your system when needed (even fixing the bottom layer of Windows is blocked). Almost certainly one of the key features which makes Android better was dropped to do this. For example maybe Gesture Typing - a bit like the Swype Nokia used to have on the N9 before it was cancelled.

Compare that to Google's "Data Liberation Front" features designed to let you export your data when you want to. This has very little direct benefit for Google, but the customer benefit is massive and comes at the point when you least expect it. Short term this looks stupid, but long term it means that users come to "trust" Google which is to Google's long term advantage as well.

Microsoft has a long history of choosing features like Active-X and directly executable email content which allow them to deliver proprietary control of your machine to themselves at the cost of problems (in those case security problems) for customers later. Customers may not know that they are being screwed now, but they remember that they were screwed before and are beginning to expect that. The Microsoft ban on GPL software in Windows Market place is an example. They don't like the software so they make the choice for you. The choice to have a fixed user interface around hubs, not allowing Apps to change things is another example - at the beginning it makes things more consistent; it makes it easier for them to sell you more similar devices; but later on it means you can never achieve the full power of a customized mobile device and is part of a whole attitude problem leading to continual app disappointment.

Simply put, code signing is a symptom of Microsoft's hatred of their own customers (just one of the first links to pop up searching for Mirosoft customer hatred. They look at their "ecosystem partners" as a bunch of suckers ready to be screwed when the chance comes up. That used to work in the old days when every tech company had to come round Redmond to get permission before doing a big new launch. Now it's just getting users and partners annoyed.

Re:bets?

[MightyYar]

Clouds let me access all my stuff from everywhere that has an internet connection, which is increasingly everywhere. Local cache solves the intermittent connectivity issue. Clouds let me backup off-site for about $100/year, which is comparable in cost to running my basement server.

Dumb graphic terminals let me see a common desktop from everywhere. No more installing apps on lab computers - just remote in to my desktop. No more bringing a separate work laptop home, just hop on the VPN and remote desktop. It saves me a ton of time and effort. I don't even need to install MS Office or Matlab at home anymore.

iPods and their descendants are great for media consumption. You don't need a laptop to watch Youtube or to share pet photos on Facebook. They are so cheap that every member of the family can have one. The need for multiple PCs - and even multiple TVs - has eroded in a way I would not have anticipated. They've even replaced camcorders - I was one of perhaps only a dozen parents at the last dance recital still sporting a camcorder... almost everyone else was recording the performance with their phone or even a full sized iPad. (It was actually pretty comical looking.)

Intel has to do this...

[JonBoy47]

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.

Not in DNA

[tuppe666]

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.”"