backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jan 29 at 11:52 PM

The market for netbooks is expected to hit 139 million by 2013

The netbook category is the hottest computer category posting the largest growth numbers in all of the market. Many consumers are choosing netbooks because they offer a low price entry into computing. Some are buying netbooks not for the price, but for the portability that the machines offer.

ABI Research announced today that it expects 35 million netbooks to ship in 2009. According to the research firm, social and technological factors have worked together to create a sort of perfect storm for the netbook market in the next few years.

Forecasts by the research firm predict that by 2013 139 million netbooks will be shipping. ABI's Kevin Burden said in a statement, "PDA’s began our reliance on instant accessible data while traveling. When PDA functionality converged with cellular voice, smartphones became the new darling of mobile professional technology that many expected to evolve into the hub for all data and communication needs for travelling professionals. Today, with a better understanding for what a smartphone is, is not, and may never be, along with a reality check on the usefulness of UMPCs, the market remains open for new device types."

Burden points out that low-cost and power miserly x86 and ARM CPUs has been the key to the netbook revolution. These processors allow users to get very close to their normal desktop or notebook computer experience in a much smaller package that offers longer battery life in most instances.

Burden continued saying, "In recent years, the industry still expected the smartphones to be more than they turned out to be, and most recently, MIDs were thought to be the next big mobile devices segment, but an unclear usage model continues to confuse the market. So today, netbooks’ time has come, and ABI research expects them to enjoy very strong market growth."

However, some analysts predict that increasing sales of netbooks is a bad thing for the CPU market. As the majority of sales begins to center on low-cost, and low profit netbook CPUs sales of more profitable CPUs may drop.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Translation
By Suntan on 1/26/2009 1:20:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As the majority of sales begins to center on low-cost, and low profit netbook CPUs sales of more profitable CPUs may drop.


We're finally figuring out that most people don't need all the power that we have been fiendishly trying to outdo our competitors with for the last couple of years.

4 cores on 90% of the computers out there is 3 cores too many.

-Suntan




RE: Translation
By abzillah on 1/26/2009 1:49:31 PM , Rating: 4
This really sucks for AMD. Why can't they get a CEO that can look at data and see what direction the market is going? This really pisses me off, because I have grown up on AMD products,and I don't want to buy Intel, but everyday when I hear the CEO open his mouth with his retardedness it makes me want to buy Intel for my next build.


RE: Translation
By Pirks on 1/26/2009 2:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
As much as I love AMD I went for Intel anyway (been using Athlons exclusively for past 5 years too). I just can't stand absolutely insane speed I get from cheapo 3.6 GHz OCed Wolfdale with 6MB cache with some insanely cheapo DDR2-1066 for $20 CAN per GB with tax (jeeez...).

Man, I'm hooked on Intel again. Although I must admit AMD's recent quads are pretty cool stuff, but I won't need a quad for a loooong time.

What AMD needs is high speed chip with a few cores (2 is more than enough) some insane amount of cache, some decent OC while having lower TDP than now, and being equal with Wolfdales clock for clock.

Unfortunately AMD is all about server CPUs these days, with lotsa cores and stuff. Good for them, I heard server CPUs make Very Big Money and Intel is still getting its blue @ss kicked there by Opterons. So, let's stop worrying about AMD, to each his own. AMD is a leader in expensive servers while Intel became a leader in cheapo desktops, gaming rigs, and netbooks. It's a pretty good market setup, right?


RE: Translation
By rudolphna on 1/26/2009 2:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
unfortunately they buy computers based on what is available, and benchmarks, power consumption etc. If you go to best buy, 90% of the computers you see are Intel. And until recently, Intel dominated the benchmarks, for the most part. And AMD defeinetely could not stand up to intel on power consumption until Phenom II


RE: Translation
By Pirks on 1/26/2009 2:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they buy computers based on what is available, and benchmarks, power consumption etc
You too forgot about the price. Most people do consider the price when buying PC and price/performance wise AMD is totally on par with Intel for vast majority of people. The only exception are overclockers but they are a minority on the market. With latest Phenoms AMD started to encroach even that (overclocking) territory, which is better than nothing. Altghough I'm not very impressed 'cause I'm a gamer and Phenoms are not the best gaming CPUs (Wolfdale forever!!!)


RE: Translation
By MikeMurphy on 1/26/2009 3:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
As a recent owner of an EEE 1000HA Netbook there is no doubt in my mind that these are going to continue to improve in popularity.

The Atom seems to run just as well as my old 1.7ghz Northwood laptop with the exception of the i945 chipset which offers a sparse amount of 3D rendering power. Slap in 2gb of memory and you have a very capable mobile system.

One thing I did notice when using mine is that it is NOT a replacement for a full-size computer. The terrible screen resolution (1024x600) makes using a full-size screen VERY refreshing.

Anyways, here is hoping someone can offer an even better package with some reasonable 3D capabilities. Even the Athlon 1000+ with a 780G would be more appealing to me in a netbook than the Atom with the i945 chipset. The ION platform using the Atom and the 9400M chip would be and ideal combo!


RE: Translation
By degeester on 1/26/2009 10:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately business in general isn't buying or replacing servers. Expensive or otherwise.


RE: Translation
By omnicronx on 1/26/2009 2:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
Then why did Intel even bother with a dual core atom ;)

There is definitely a place for more than one core, perhaps if we changed your statement to '4 cores on 90% of the computers out there is 2 cores too many.'

Even the most basic multitasking tasks(listening to music and using the internet at the same time counts) takes advantage of dual core technology.


RE: Translation
By noirsoft on 1/26/2009 2:35:56 PM , Rating: 3
I would go further and argue that a second core (or at least something like hyperthreading) is needed more on the atom than on a full Pentium4 and above. Due to the lack of out-of-order completion, the Atom tends to have more stalls than a Pentium, making it feel quite a bit slower than an equivalently-clocked full processor. The single-core atom is still fast enough for the basic tasks of a netbook, but a second core would add a significant improvement in the subjective responsiveness of the system.

I'd love to see an Atom HT for netbooks, assuming that Intel & Microsoft still want to keep dual-core chips out of netbooks.


RE: Translation
By omnicronx on 1/26/2009 2:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would go further and argue that a second core (or at least something like hyperthreading) is needed more on the atom than on a full Pentium4 and above. Due to the lack of out-of-order completion, the Atom tends to have more stalls than a Pentium, making it feel quite a bit slower than an equivalently-clocked full processor.
Without a doubt.. the atom even employs hyperthreading (although different than previous processors such as the P4) to improve the lackluster performance of the in order processing Atom.


RE: Translation
By omnicronx on 1/26/2009 2:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot to add:
quote:
The single-core atom is still fast enough for the basic tasks of a netbook, but a second core would add a significant improvement in the subjective responsiveness of the system.
With a minimal power increase. (we are talking about 4w vs 8w here. Far less at idle)


RE: Translation
By Pirks on 1/26/2009 2:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd love to see an Atom HT
The Intel Atom is an in-order single-core processor with Hyper-Threading (C) Wikipedia


RE: Translation
By omnicronx on 1/26/2009 3:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
The Intel Atom is an in-order single-core / dual-core processor with Hyper-Threading.


RE: Translation
By Moishe on 1/26/2009 2:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ridiculous statement.

We do need more cores. The difference is that all computers are not created for all tasks. I need multi-cores for DVR, gaming, etc. I use my netbook for studying and mobile computing.

separate uses.


RE: Translation
By Suntan on 1/26/2009 6:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say *all* computers.

However, I would guess there are many more computers pulling heavy duty checking email and playing a game of solitaire for every computer that gets used for truly intensive applications.

Sorry, but "most" consumers had more than enough with the old P-M single core chips.

-Suntan


RE: Translation
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 1:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
Most consumers have more than enough with a 1GHz P3. They get something new only because their old system broke and replacing parts would've been time consuming (or beyond their skill level) and costly while the other parts were also aging towards end of life.


RE: Translation
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 1:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
You might've been duped into believing you "need" multi-cores, but the fact is people were doing DVR, gaming, etc, before we had multicore processors on PCs. The idea a computer MUST be as fast as possible is incorrect. It merely needs be fast enough. If we didn't have multicore CPUs the games you see barely running on them would have simply been designed to be less demanding of processors, or vice-versa, if CPUs were 6X as fast today as they are, games would've been that much more demanding than they are.


RE: Translation
By masher2 (blog) on 1/27/2009 2:09:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we didn't have multicore CPUs the games you see barely running on them would have simply been designed to be less demanding of processors
And would have had fewer features, less realistic graphics, sparser content, less intelligent AI, and/or some combination of the above.

The same goes for most any other genre of software. Developers aren't simply writing their code slower to counteract faster processors. They're using those extra cycles to offer you more features or power. Yes, even things like web browsing and watching videos. If you doubt this, try loading up a flash-heavy site on your old Pentium-3, or playing an H.264-encoded HD video stream on it. You won't be terribly impressed by the results.


RE: Translation
By Suntan on 1/27/2009 10:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Developers aren't simply writing their code slower to counteract faster processors....


quote:
...try loading up a flash-heavy site


Interesting that you site an Adobe product in the same post that you argue about code efficiency…

-Suntan


yaya
By g35fan on 1/26/2009 4:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
I was considering purchasing a Dell mini 9 for $180 after that 20% coupon was just posted up.

I used one at a BestBuy and couldn't stand it. I don't have fat fingers and it was just akward on that keyboard and the screen is so tiny. With limited HD space, slow processors and no CD drive...I just couldn't justify it when it's only gonna be a toy.

It's the latest fad though so I'm sure you Mac type people will run with it and eat it up.




RE: yaya
By omnicronx on 1/26/2009 5:10:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
With limited HD space, slow processors and no CD drive...I just couldn't justify it when it's only gonna be a toy.
Its not called a Netbook because you can catch fish and other small animals with it..


RE: yaya
By Pirks on 1/26/2009 5:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
LOL


RE: yaya
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 1:20:43 AM , Rating: 3
Nor is it very useful on the 'net with it's tiny screen and low resolution.

There are two primary reasons for their popularity. Low price and the human fascination with shrinking things until they're less usable as a result.


RE: yaya
By masher2 (blog) on 1/27/2009 2:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
At one time, I did a surprising amount of work on a PC with 320x200 resolution. Compared to that, 1024x600 is gargantuan.

I think the people buying Netbooks know their own needs better than you do. They're not all simply mesmerized by the amazing shrinking PC.


RE: yaya
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 10:41:06 PM , Rating: 3
and that time was command line, yes? Let's not needlessly confuse reality here, we both know the modern world uses a (windows or 'nix) GUI, and that people are relatively stupid, buying something because it is small when they aren't especially lacking in space or muscle power to lug an extra pound around.

If they want small and the sacrifices that come along with that, so be it, but yes they are mesmerized by a shrunk PC beyond sanity and can't be nearly as productive with the shrunken screen and keyboard.

Hint - that's why normally these things are so small when portability isn't a factor. I'll give people some credit for recognizing when portability is important, but then they go and lug plenty of other things they don't need which blows their whole argument.


RE: yaya
By Suntan on 1/27/2009 10:06:00 AM , Rating: 2
I know it is a concept that is hard to grasp, but try and wrap your head around the fact that people do go on and do things other than *just* surf the internet.

-Suntan


RE: yaya
By mindless1 on 1/29/2009 11:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
How utterly backwards (and the whole world proves it).

You'd argue for high performance CPUs when most people's CPU sits mostly idle, and then argue for lower resolution than we've seen in several years when people are buying higher and higher resolution monitors.

If you can't see this market choice besides the factors I mentioned like price, do tell us what tasks you feel aren't significantly improved upon by going with a higher resolution than the average netbook.

Please list them all, we're all dying to see this list. You can't even read a lot of HTML emails these days with a 1024x600 screen without constant scrolling around to see everything. How many times do you have to scroll just to read a whole section of a modern webpage?

Remember I never claimed it made anything impossible, just ridiculous when a slightly larger form-factor falls in line with how apps and websites were designed to display in recent years.


Only a temporary halt on performance progress
By Alpha4 on 1/26/2009 2:45:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As the majority of sales begins to center on low-cost, and low profit netbook CPUs sales of more profitable CPUs may drop
I understand the market worries surrounding the netbook processor. It yields a lower margin for sales premiums.

One thing that isn't discussed is how performance will be impacted though, and where that is concerned we might just see a scenario where desktop CPU development simply slows down until netbook processors catch up, at which point the pace of improvement will return and we can start churning some higher framerates in games again. I can't quite see the desktop market advancing at the rate it is otherwise.




By Oregonian2 on 1/26/2009 4:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well... desktop computing I think is in somewhat of a semi-stall (not in niche markets for sure, but I'm talking "overall"). More so during an economy downturn where hardware upgrading needs all the more justification.

What's lagging is software. The killer application that NEEDS new machines. Although I do have some programs that are CPU-limited (and only one (SPICE simulation) that's severely so, but that's a "work" one and I'm now employment-challenged so it doesn't matter)-- they all are "okay" on a first-gen Intel Conroe with only two cores.

Need something new and must-have that needs insane processor speed (preferably one that can take advantage of a lot of cores w/o running into each other's memory bandwidth needs).

When that happens, things will move ahead at 'warp speed'.


RE: Only a temporary halt on performance progress
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 1:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
I'd have to disagree, even with the launch of Vista behind us and Win7 coming, the two dominant OS on earth for the next few years, we still don't see people moving towards more expensive, faster processors. Instead as with netbooks running XP, people are forgoing the new killer software in favor of the older stuff.

The two killer apps will probably be voice control and virtual reality. The tech isn't there to support either of these yet, and I suppose it's fair to say you are right that within these two, the software is a large portion of that.


By Oregonian2 on 1/27/2009 7:05:30 AM , Rating: 2
What is it I said that you disagree with, I really couldn't figure it out.

I basically said that it'll take a new high CPU performance required killer app to make major hardware upgrades to desktops take off, and you seem to agree with that.

P.S. - One does not forgo killer apps, the whole point of the "killer" designation is that everybody WANTS and NEEDS it. :-) :-) By definition, if it can be forgone, then its not a killer app.


ddcascasdcs
By on 1/26/2009 2:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
csdcdsacdsac




Netbooks
By CalWorthing on 1/26/2009 6:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm certainly glad that Apple knows how "nascent" netbooks may be.




By intheloop on 1/28/2009 2:09:39 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree with what some people say about multicores and that most people won't be needing them. Virtualisation will go mainstream when Windows 7 is introduced. Microsoft say that they will run older windows Os;es, like Xp, in a virtual machine that will be integrated into the OS.

And anybody into security knows that running things in some type of sandbox mode or, preferably, in a virtual OS is the way to go. And if the malware producers are continuing to do their stuff, it will lead to more demand for that even for the average user. And that demands a lot more from the desktop pc. Both from more cores and from much more memory (64 bit will also be the default standard, it is becoming that right now, anyway).




It's a sign.
By reader1 on 1/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: It's a sign.
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/26/2009 1:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't that people have too many CPU cores...it's that they aren't using those cores for folding ;)


RE: It's a sign.
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/26/2009 1:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Fail. I meant to reply to the other guy:

quote:
We're finally figuring out that most people don't need all the power that we have been fiendishly trying to outdo our competitors with for the last couple of years. 4 cores on 90% of the computers out there is 3 cores too many. -Suntan


RE: It's a sign.
By Network25 on 1/26/2009 1:53:19 PM , Rating: 5
You probably should have thought your post through all the way before putting it on the internet. Your idea makes no sense. If what you are talking about came to pass, an entire industry of programmers would be out of a job. Every different business that uses custom applications for their business would no longer be able to use PCs. I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few large corporations that would see to it that your idea never materializes.


RE: It's a sign.
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 1:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
There will be closed netbook appliances, this much we can be certain of to lower cost. Just too much overhead with x86, someone in China will make a netbook that sells for under $75 and I mean within the next 5 years (if it even takes that long).


RE: It's a sign.
By Pirks on 1/26/2009 2:14:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The closed PC is coming
It's come a few years ago, and it's called Mac. Somehow it was unable to dethrone the piece of crap PC. Everybody still uses PC, and the experiment goes on and on :) See, there's that little thing called "price" that you forgot about. The piece of crap PC is always cheaper than your closed Mac, how is it possible for the more expensive product to kill a cheaper one? This has never happend and will not happen, because it's against the law of economics.


RE: It's a sign.
By mmntech on 1/26/2009 2:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
In a sense Macs are closed in that the OS is locked to Apple produced hardware. It's rather easy for Apple to implement that since they produce both the hardware and the software for their systems. Windows is a different story. However, Apple does not limit what you can ultimately install on your Mac. To me, a closed PC is ultimately what game consoles and the iPhone are. Limiting software to only that which is approved by the system provider. It's entirely possible. However, it's probably unlikely anytime in the near future simply due to the huge logistical issues it would cause.


RE: It's a sign.
By Pirks on 1/26/2009 2:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
Which proves my point. Even such a closed and totalitarian company as Apple didn't bother making their Macs really closed computers by introducing AppStore for Macs and limiting Mac software purchase options to this one store strictly controlled by Apple. Which speaks volumes about this "closed bigger iPhone" being totally stillborn idea. EVEN Apple gets that!


RE: It's a sign.
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 1:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
Irrelevant, Apple is trying to provide a trendy product at a price-premium, not trying to compete with the lowest cost product possible.


RE: It's a sign.
By pukemon on 1/26/2009 2:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
That's basically what the Palm Folio was supposed to be, but they killed that off before it ever came to market.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki