Print 58 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Jan 30 at 11:50 AM

Chrome makes up as much as 10% of Acer's US sales

Acer has been having a difficult time in the computer market over the last several quarters, and has posted consecutive annual losses. Acer also announced during its latest quarterly report that it had taken $120 million write-off due to the declining value of Gateway, Packard Bell, and eMachines-branded computers.

Despite these troubles, the company is touting strong sales of its Chromebooks that use Google’s Chrome OS, while still talking negatively about Windows 8.

Acer says that notebooks running Chrome OS account for 5 to 10% of its U.S. shipments since the machines were released here in November. Acer President Jim Wong said that he expects the ratio of Chrome sales to be sustainable in the long term. He also said that the company is considering offering additional Chrome OS models in other developed markets.

Acer C7 Chromebook

Acer and many other computer makers are looking for alternatives to the Windows operating system because consumers continue to stick with older versions of the operating system rather than upgrade to the latest version.

“Windows 8 itself is still not successful,” said Wong. “The whole market didn’t come back to growth after the Windows 8 launch, that’s a simple way to judge if it is successful or not.”
Wong criticized Windows 8 earlier this month alleging that Microsoft was getting marketing for its new operating system wrong.

Source: Bloomberg

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Surprising
By 91TTZ on 1/28/2013 11:56:41 AM , Rating: 3
The removal of the start button is probably why consumers in general have rejected Windows 8. As a result, Windows 8's adoption is slower than even Vista's (which was a complete flop)

It's a shame, too. I run Windows 8 with Start8, and that makes it a really good OS. Just think... Microsoft was one little decision away from having a successful OS, but they decided to take away something that customers wanted.

RE: Surprising
By Sazabi19 on 1/28/2013 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
The Start Menu was a huge negative change for most people, but that coupled with Metro turns such a large percentage of people off that I think Vista has MORE users now. Bring back Aero and my start button (at least the choice!) And I will buy the hell out of 9. I used 8 since RC up until earlier this month, put Win7 back on my rig, that was even with using Windows 8 Start Menu, skipping the start scree, giving me a start button, and low level Aero. Still couldn't make up for the fact that it was still a touch screen OS on my rig. If you have a program hang in 8 (a few of my games), guess where the task manager opens? The ONLY place it opens is on the desktop. If you have something that hangs there good luck trying to end the process. I have since started to dabble in Ubuntu on my laptop.

RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/28/2013 12:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
I still haven't had anyone explain to me why it's a "huge negative change".

You hit the win key or go to the corner and click (just like win7), and on a typical 1080p screen you can have >70 programs one click away. Either that or you type, just like win7 except you get more results.

How on earth is that a negative change? Did you enjoy clicking and scrolling unnecessarily inside the Win7 start menu to launch a program?

RE: Surprising
By invidious on 1/28/2013 1:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming that you actually have 70 applications... How is side scrolling through 70 metro tiles easier then immediately jumping to what you want on an alphabatized list in the programs menu of your start menu.

If anything desktop metro makes the most sense if you only have a handful of applications that all fit on one metro screen.

For a power user, spending money to switch a casual/mobile oriented OS just makes no sense. If it was free I "MIGHT" switch, at $$$ don't make me laugh.

RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/28/2013 1:44:14 PM , Rating: 1
If you have <70 applications, you can fit them all on one screen without any scrolling. Cheap 1080p monitors will allow up to 6 rows and 12-14 columns (depending on spacers) visible at once:
Higher res will allow even more.

What's immediate about the win7 start menu? It needs multiple clicks and scrolling to start a program. For most people, Win8 needs only one click and no scrolling . People like you keep saying that it's no good for a power user yet keep failing to give a reason why.

Try again.

RE: Surprising
By inighthawki on 1/28/2013 4:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Win+Q. Done

RE: Surprising
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/28/2013 4:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
No you haven't.

Don't like Metro apps? Fine, don't use them. I can't force you to like them, so take them off the start page and stick with desktop apps.

But the notion that the Win8 start page is less productive than the Win7 start menu? That's unequivocally and objectively BS. That's why you are utterly incapable of putting together a coherent argument to prove it, and resort to name calling instead.

RE: Surprising
By Paj on 1/29/2013 7:55:51 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Surprising
By 91TTZ on 1/28/2013 3:22:14 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know why people find this hard to understand. To me it just shows a breakdown in their ability to understand the scope of the situation or the business/customer relationship. They don't understand what factors are in the business's control and what factors are out of their control, and as a result they have trouble getting the most out of a situation.

A company is in the business of selling products to customers. Customers demand certain features in those products. If a company gives customers what they want (regardless of why they think they want it), the company makes money. If the company makes a decision to "improve" upon their product and they take away features that customers want, they risk losing those customers. That is exactly what Microsoft did here.

It's very similar to the car debates the pop up on Dailytech. People ask why car manufacturers keep coming out with SUVs when most people never go offroad, the SUVs don't handle as well, and they got poor gas mileage. By all accounts these customers would be better suited to buy an economy car or minivan. But the customer with cash in hand wants to buy an SUV.

The manufacturer can either give the customer what she wants or it can listen to critics who don't give them any money. I can tell you where the money and profit is- catering to customer demand.

During the development of Windows 8 Microsoft had to make the decision whether to keep the traditional look of Windows that its customers liked or to try to force them in a different, mobile-oriented direction. Microsoft made a decision that the majority of their customers didn't like so their bottom line is reflecting that decision.

RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/28/2013 5:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
Why did you write an essay to answer something I didn't ask?

I am not asking whether there are some people who don't like Win8, nor am I questioning why sales are slightly down in the face of that reaction.

I am specifically asking why using a start page (where you only click on desktop shortcuts) is a "huge negative change" vs a Win7 start menu. I'm asking for a rational reason, not a restatement of your claim.

RE: Surprising
By 91TTZ on 1/29/2013 11:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
I can give you my own opinion, but I don't don't speak for everyone:

1. The Start Button is a more efficient user interface for a desktop user because you can click in the corner and see a list of programs you installed. A list is a more logical display of information than a set of tiles. From Phonebooks, restaurant menus, presentations, book indexes, Google Search results... pretty much anytime you need to display a sorted set of information, a list is the most logical and efficient manner to display it. It's inherently easy to sort and categorize information in a list, so it scales well. Laying out tiles or thumbnails may look attractive but it's not as straightforward or logical. It also takes up more space so the information density is lower. It also doesn't scale well with larger numbers of items.

For a tablet operating system I can understand why they'd do it. The large tiles are easier to manipulate with your finger than a list would be. The problem is that the vast majority of Windows 8 users won't be using it on a tablet; they'll be using it on a desktop or laptop that has a keyboard and mouse. For these users, the Windows 8 touch optimizations were an unnecessary tradeoff. If I wanted a tablet OS I'd buy a tablet that came with one.

Also, probably the biggest thing that pissed people off is the fact that Microsoft took away the ability to remove the touch optimizations. The tiny Start8 program does it very effectively so it wasn't a technical hurdle on Microsoft's part. I can understand that they'd want to include touch functionality for tablets. But to 1) make that the default setting and 2) remove the ability of users to disable it just showed hubris on Microsoft's part. Why not give customers the option to choose classic mode like all previous versions allowed?

It's because Microsoft is trying to FORCE its users to buy into their mobile strategy. Microsoft has a 90% market share on desktops/laptop operating systems but only a tiny fraction of the growing mobile space. Microsoft wants to MAKE SURE their desktop users get used to their mobile look and feel so that they become more likely to buy a Microsoft phone or tablet. I don't like being corralled like that.

RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/29/2013 12:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
A list is a more logical display of information than a set of tiles.
For common actions, the vast majority of applications use icons and buttons in a tile-like layout. Imagine if Word or Excel got rid of buttons and put everything in menu lists.

It's funny that you mention restaurant menus, because when speed and efficiency matter (drive through menus, fast food menus at the cashier), you overwhelmingly have a tile-like layout extending horizontally, dominated by pictorial information.

For searches, win8 gives you lists just like win7, google, etc, except using the whole screen as it should. Imagine if you googled something, but the results were squeezed into the left fifth of the screen. That's the win7 approach, and win8 is a vast improvement.
It also takes up more space so the information density is lower.
Density is lower, but total information presented is higher. This argument is similar to how Apple fans say the iPhone display is superior due to higher dpi, but how is that an advantage if resolution (i.e. total information) is less?

You only click on the start button when you intentionally want to change tasks, so why conserve space and limit information?
Why not give customers the option to choose classic mode like all previous versions allowed?
I can understand attachment to what's familiar, but I don't understand the claims of the start page being less productive. You bring it up, click once, and it's gone.

You're right that there's a little hubris, but that's not all. Having two start menus would make win8 even more bipolar. There's value in having a unified look across a company's entire product line, particularly with the way tasks are shifting from one platform to another. It's very likely that we'll have tablet hybrids displacing notebooks/desktops for 90% of the market, with docks and monitors for desktop use, and a few years later I can see PadFone type devices where smartphones become the only computing device. What else are we going to do with ever increasing mobile computing power? All things considered, I think MS has chosen a pretty optimal solution to the disruptive impact of mobile technology.

Their biggest mistake is in not being more helpful out of the box. There should be a better, more accessible tutorial, and there should also be a guide about how usable the start page can be for organizing and launching desktop apps, typing to search, etc.

But for educated power users? I just don't see how win8 slows you down in any way if you just ignore metro.

RE: Surprising
By 91TTZ on 1/29/2013 2:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's very likely that we'll have tablet hybrids displacing notebooks/desktops for 90% of the market, with docks and monitors for desktop use, and a few years later I can see PadFone type devices where smartphones become the only computing device. What else are we going to do with ever increasing mobile computing power? All things considered, I think MS has chosen a pretty optimal solution to the disruptive impact of mobile technology.

The problem is that they did not need to deal with it on their desktop operating system. They could have added the capabilities without making them the default, and they certainly shouldn't have forced users to adopt that style. Apple did not change OSX to become like iOS, they realized that iOS works best on the iPhone/iPad while OSX worked best on their desktops/laptops.

Microsoft made a tradeoff where one was not necessary. They tried to satisfy multiple market forces that were pulling in different directions and they made a bad tradeoff. They made another Pontiac Aztek. I remember when that thing was new how automotive press claimed how innovative the design was, how roomy and versatile it was, how it was a new trend in vehicles, etc. People hated it and it went down in history as being one of the worst car designs ever.

As far as mobile/tablets go, there's a lot of hype surrounding them right now because it's a new market that has enjoyed a high profit margin. People tend to extrapolate the growth trends and come to the conclusion that mobile devices will take over and become this huge cash crop. This will not happen. As in every new market, the rapid growth that occurs in the beginning eventually yields to slower sustainable growth. Products get cheaper and the profit margins dry up. Innovation slows as all products adopt the most useful features. The devices become a commodity.

RE: Surprising
By gladiatorua on 1/28/2013 10:50:23 PM , Rating: 1
Because Metro is a failure as an UI for this generation of PCs.
The fraction of PCs that support Windows8 is insignificant. Windows8 was built with touchscreen in mind and usability with mouse is objectively worse. Significantly more clicks, more mouse travel, unintuitive gestures for mouse... and a whole bunch of tablet limitation that didn't exist on PC before W8. Why one app per screen? And that's not including minor issues like collision of two scroll bars in MS's own apps(when you scroll in the app sideways until you encounter vertical scroll and start scrolling vertically).
It's just not for current PCs. And I don't see huge movement towards touch screens on PCs from manufacturers.

RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/29/2013 11:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
Since so many people don't like Metro apps (I accept their reasons, and don't use many either), I'm talking strictly from a POV of using win8 for desktop apps only.

I made that abundantly clear. What I want to know is why win8 is worse for desktop apps.
Significantly more clicks
WTF are you talking about? The win8 start page can launch over 5x as many things with one click as the win7 start menu.
more mouse travel
Since when do we ask for more clicks and scrolling to save on mouse travel?
unintuitive gestures for mouse
What gestures are needed to launch and run desktop apps?
Why one app per screen?
Who told you that you must use metro apps?
And I don't see huge movement towards touch screens on PCs from manufacturers.
Manufacturers grossly underestimated their demand. In a time of declining PC sales (including Macs/Macbooks), touchscreen notebooks were usually sold out last quarter.

But if you don't like Metro apps in the first place, why are you even bringing this up? What win7 usage case needs a touchscreen to do the same things on win8?

RE: Surprising
By 91TTZ on 1/29/2013 12:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
Slowly but surely you're beginning to sound just like the early detractors of Windows 8.

If you remember, in the development phase of Windows 8 there was lots of arguing about how people will use computers with Windows 8. Most Windows 8 fans stated that they intend on using the full-screen Metro apps instead of the "antiquated" windowed applications that people traditionally used. Windows 8 fans were all about that new touch-screen functionality and optimization.

Now that Windows 8 has flopped the fans have shifted their message slightly. They say that it still runs Windowed applications better than Windows 7. They say that you don't have to use the full-screen Metro apps. They say that you can install Start8 if you want the Start Button back.

In other words, they're finally realizing that in order to make Windows 8 better, people should work around all the touch optimizations that the detractors have been complaining about from the beginning.

RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/29/2013 1:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you now creating a strawman? I never said or thought that touch applications would replace desktop apps, and we're talking about how easy it is for people to use win8 for desktop apps, not why they chose to do so.

You still insist that people have to "work around" something to use Win8 primarily for desktop apps. What work are you talking about?

Arranging icons? I had to organize/delete win7 start menu items as well. Clicking the corner on the rare occasion you boot? I can't think of anything else, so do tell.

RE: Surprising
By 91TTZ on 1/29/2013 2:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think that you're doing your best to avoid admitting the obvious- people view Windows 8 as a step backward. They simply do not want it. They do not want it on their desktop, they do not want it on their laptop, and they do not want it on their tablet.

As I've said from the beginning, Microsoft has positioned Windows 8 in no-man's-land. It's become a jack of all trades, master of none. In an effort to cater both to desktop users and also to mobile users, they've made an operating system that works well on neither.

When half of your customers want pickup trucks and half of your customers want motorcycles, you design a pickup truck and a motorcycle. You do not design a giant motorcycle with a bed on the back.

RE: Surprising
By Manch on 1/29/2013 5:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
When half of your customers want pickup trucks and half of your customers want motorcycles, you design a pickup truck and a motorcycle. You do not design a giant motorcycle with a bed on the back.

MS must have looked to this for inspiration:

RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/30/2013 11:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
Nice dodge of the question. You still haven't brought a valid point.

How does a win8 start page impede your use of desktop apps over a win7 start menu?

What workarounds need to be done?

This discussion isn't about sales (which have been fine, BTW), this isn't about the existence of a minority of overall users that don't want it, or the majority of hardcores, or your perception of want, or the Apple-loving media's trashing of Win8, or like/dislike.

I have always asked only one thing: What is a RATIONAL explanation of how Win8 impedes your desktop productivity? If you keep dodging that, it's because you can't answer it, and thus Win8 hate has no functional basis; instead, it is simply about clinging to the aesthetically familiar.

RE: Surprising
By acer905 on 1/28/2013 12:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
People never wanted the damn start menu to begin with. And people raved when Microsoft dared to change the UI that they had grown used to. Now, a decade and a half later, people are raving that Microsoft has again changed the UI. Guess what, after enough time, they'll do it again.

RE: Surprising
By 91TTZ on 1/28/2013 12:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
You're making a very basic mistake with your reasoning- you're forgetting that business is consumer driven and that you must cater to the customer.

In your example about Windows95, people loved the Start Menu. Windows 95 was a runaway hit because people liked what they saw. People viewed the addition of the Start Menu as a positive change and demanded it in all following products.

On the other hand, people viewed the removal of the start menu in Windows 8 as a negative change. People did not want it removed, and the sales figures reflect that.

It does not matter whether you like it or not, or whether you think it's a good change. It only matters whether the buying public at large likes it. In this case, they do not like it and Windows 8 is flopping.

RE: Surprising
By Unspoken Thought on 1/28/2013 9:08:02 PM , Rating: 3
Aren't you also making a mistake by directly correlating the removal of the start menu with sales numbers?

There are actually a ton of folks out on the web that claim Windows 8 is great to use, even with the Modern UI start screen.

What is more likely the reason for non upgrading is the stigma the media spun on Windows, hardware lasting much longer before recycling, and most importantly users recently moving to the Windows 7 platform.

There were 4 million upgrades within the first three days alone and 60 million licenses sold within two months utilizing the same metric to define Windows 7 sales.

Unfortunately, many are buying into the spin and haven't even given it a chance; they ride on the media band wagon. If you look at comments from users that have actually used it for longer than 5 minutes, you will find more people that like Windows 8 than don't.

RE: Surprising
By 91TTZ on 1/29/2013 12:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of people do not like like Windows 8. It's not just me, it's many people.

Each and every person gets to make their own decisions. I made mine, you made yours. As reality has it, most customers just don't want Windows 8.

Before the launch of Windows 8 you had people like me making the prediction that Windows 8 would flop because you had a corporation forcing change on customers rather than customers demanding change. Right from the beginning I told you what was going to happen. I said it's going to be another Vista or ME. But the clueless Windows 8 fans said it was going to be a runaway success and that I just am afraid of change, blah blah blah. Microsoft said that Windows 8 was going to drive PC sales due to its popularity.

Now that reality is upon us we see that Windows 8 has flopped. The adoption rate is even slower than Vista. I hear fans of Windows 8 saying that people "should have" liked it and demanding that they give reasons why they don't like it. Reality doesn't work that way. You can't force people to adopt your opinion.

RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/29/2013 2:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of people do not like like Windows 8. It's not just me, it's many people.
No, you just think that:
35% have an overall negative opinion. It's selling fine, too.

Just because people don't plan on upgrading or encouraging others to do so doesn't mean they don't like win8. If I pass on upgrading my phone or computer or TV or whatever, it doesn't mean I dislike all the newer stuff.

Windows 7 is a solid OS, so many see no need to upgrade.

RE: Surprising
By 91TTZ on 1/29/2013 5:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
Did you really read that article and come to that conclusion? Seriously?

First of all, that article is almost a year old, long before Windows 8 came out.

Second of all, the people who like Windows 8 say that it's the people who have never tried it who give it bad press. They said if you gave it a chance you'd like it. This article says half of the people who did try it would not recommend it.

Third, you claim that it's selling fine. LOL. It is most definitely NOT selling fine:

It's selling slower than Vista, which even Microsoft admits was a flop. In fact, a high level Microsoft executive even joked about it:

"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that," said Kevin Turner, Microsoft's chief operating officer

It's not that people are skipping upgrading, it's that when they do upgrade from XP they're upgrading to Windows 7 instead of Windows 8.

RE: Surprising
By Mint on 1/30/2013 11:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
LOL you claim "It is most definitely NOT selling fine", and then provide a link with ZERO sales figures. It's no wonder why, because the fact of 60 million license sales proves you wrong.

Webstats vary grossly from one company's stats to another. 1.72%? Well, look at the Steam survey after two months:
Win 8 is at 6.93% as of Dec 2012. For Oct 2012, it was only 0.22%, so it's true that pre-release adoption was quite low, but usage picked up quickly after that.

This is despite Valve's anti-Win8 talk and Steam having a disproportionate number of hardcore users, who are the most vocal Win8 haters.

Comparison with Win7 is apples and oranges. Win7 followed a hated OS, and happened during a time of PC sales growth. Win8 followed a beloved OS that doesn't give people reason to upgrade. There is nothing MS could have done to repeat Win7 sales.

As for the NPD stat, guess what: ALL notebooks/desktops have declining sales this year, regardless of OS. Apple lost 20% of sales year over year. Windows PC sales declined far less than that.

So you haven't proven jack.

"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki