Intel's restrictions on Atom - why?

[TuxDave]

Sure is. What's so great about what you linked besides the screen size and having bluetooth(which if you really needed you can still get a USB dongle)?

*snip*

I think this post is nearing the realm of how different people value different things. One, the product he linked is a Sony computer which has some built in inflation which is really the fault of Sony and not so much the "netbook" concept.

2nd, I've never seen that netbook but that's pretty damn small. Even before netbooks, you had those CULV 1GHz tiny 10" notebooks that cost 2x the "cheapy laptops" of the day. I'm guessing you were arguing the same thing back then. "Why pay so much for a computer that is computationally weaker when you can get this slightly larger computer and buy all the accessories you need to compete for a much lower price???"

There is a price for form factor (and brand) and to some, $800 is that price.

 

[21stHermit]

Because if I wanted one now, I couldn't get one for $200 because it's not BF anymore? $200 and change isn't typical (as far as I know)

Here you go $180, use COOLCASH at checkout.

 

[TuxDave]

Here you go $180, use COOLCASH at checkout.

Where were you about 3 months ago? Actually for me, can that thing run a hackintosh platform? (prior to 10.whatever that cut atom support)

 

[Martimus]

This thread has deviated from a question asked by the OP to a hatred of Netbooks and I apologize if I may have started the fight or contributed to it.
Bottom line: Intel only sets a screen size restriction, Microsoft sets a restriction on everything else based on whatever OS you're using.

So who owns the copyright for the term, "netbook"? Intel or Microsoft? If neither do, then it doesn't matter what restrictions they may put on it.

I doubt Intel will continue to put price pressure on OEM's to follow what they want them to do with their hardware after this FTC suit is over, and Linux is really a better fit for a Netbook than any Microsoft operating system anyway.

 

[Idontcare]

So who owns the copyright for the term, "netbook"? Intel or Microsoft? If neither do, then it doesn't matter what restrictions they may put on it.

I doubt Intel will continue to put price pressure on OEM's to follow what they want them to do with their hardware after this FTC suit is over, and Linux is really a better fit for a Netbook than any Microsoft operating system anyway.

Psion, Intel settle 'Netbook' trademark dispute

 

[lothar]

So who owns the copyright for the term, "netbook"? Intel or Microsoft? If neither do, then it doesn't matter what restrictions they may put on it.

I doubt Intel will continue to put price pressure on OEM's to follow what they want them to do with their hardware after this FTC suit is over, and Linux is really a better fit for a Netbook than any Microsoft operating system anyway.

Why then would a multi-billion dollar company like HP be asking Intel to update the netbook screen size from 10" to 13" from the link I posted earlier?
Why bother wasting the time to ask when they can just release one?

I've always assumed either Intel or Microsoft owned the "netbook" patent/specification.
IDC's link confirms that Intel now owns the copyright/trademark.

If some other company wants to make up their own specification and call it a "booknet", "notenetbook" or "netnotebook" they're free to do so as long as the copyright/trademark is available.
Neither of those have the same ring to it as the word "netbook" does.

 

[lothar]

I think this post is nearing the realm of how different people value different things. One, the product he linked is a Sony computer which has some built in inflation which is really the fault of Sony and not so much the "netbook" concept.

2nd, I've never seen that netbook but that's pretty damn small. Even before netbooks, you had those CULV 1GHz tiny 10" notebooks that cost 2x the "cheapy laptops" of the day. I'm guessing you were arguing the same thing back then. "Why pay so much for a computer that is computationally weaker when you can get this much better performing computer for half the price and buy all the accessories if you need to compete for a much lower price???"

There is a price for form factor (and brand) and to some, $800 is that price.

Fixed for you.

Sony's products are always overpriced for no reason at all .
For some reason people still seem to associate the Sony brand as being synonymus with quality and pay extra hundred(s) dollars over what could be had by Dell, HP, Samsung, Canon, and others when they haven't been so since the '80s.

Would I spend $350 or less on a netbook? Sure.
Will I pay $400+ for one? Absolutely not.

 

[Martimus]

Why then would a multi-billion dollar company like HP be asking Intel to update the netbook screen size from 10" to 13" from the link I posted earlier?
Why bother wasting the time to ask when they can just release one?

I've always assumed either Intel or Microsoft owned the "netbook" patent/specification.
IDC's link confirms that Intel now owns the copyright/trademark.

If some other company wants to make up their own specification and call it a "booknet", "notenetbook" or "netnotebook" they're free to do so as long as the copyright/trademark is available.
Neither of those have the same ring to it as the word "netbook" does.

Except when you read the article, Psion owns the trademark, but Intel argued that it was a generic term that could not be trademarked. It looks to me that any company could name a small laptop a "netbook" and be on safe ground based on the what I read there. Of course, it was such a short article that it would be difficult to draw any real conclusions from it.

 

[lothar]

Except when you read the article, Psion owns the trademark, but Intel argued that it was a generic term that could not be trademarked. It looks to me that any company could name a small laptop a "netbook" and be on safe ground based on the what I read there. Of course, it was such a short article that it would be difficult to draw any real conclusions from it.

Oops, looks like I misread that article.

I'm not quite sure why HPQ executive Mark Hurd would need to ask Intel/Microsoft's permission to do so if they feel it can help shareholders such as myself when they can just release it without asking.

If stupid people want to spend $500+ for a 13" or 15" netbook more power to them, that only makes me richer since I own HPQ stock(only tech company I own).
I have no problem with that.

 

[Idontcare]

yeah from what I gathered from the article it was actually more of a trademark dispute that resulted in the term netbook being de-trademarked.

So now I am a little confused over the netbook brand deal...is this one of those "never docummented but everyone understands Intel's expectations" situations?

 

[Martimus]

yeah from what I gathered from the article it was actually more of a trademark dispute that resulted in the term netbook being de-trademarked.

So now I am a little confused over the netbook brand deal...is this one of those "never docummented but everyone understands Intel's expectations" situations?

In my opinion, it has to do with Intel and their treatment of their customers. They have a documented history of telling their customers (OEMs) exactly how to use their products and if they deviate from that usage, they will get penalized with higher prices (moreso a reduction of discounts).

Taking this information into account, I can see companies being wary of deviating from Intel's guidance without asking permission first; in order to keep on the companies good side and avoid the penalties they have seen in the past for any deviation. This is a side effect to Intel's defacto monopoly that they can do this, although I doubt it will continue through this FTC trial.

 

[Genx87]

My understanding is that Intel sells both netbook, and desktop, versions of the Atom. They are identical, except Intel disables x64 support and dual-core support for the netbook versions.

Why do they do that? Why are all of the major mfgs restricted in terms of what they can put into a netbook? No dual-cores, no 64-bit support, only 1GB RAM max, etc.,etc. (Not to mention, a tiny screen. Why they cannot put even a regular 768-line display is a mystery to me)

A dual-core Atom, with an NV Ion chipset, and 64-bit support, and 4GB of RAM, and a halfway decent screen, would make a nice machine. Too bad we'll probably never see it. Well, I guess it depends on how the FTC lawsuit against Intel progresses.

I'd assume due maximizing battery life on netbooks. Which are imo not supposed to be anymore more than a browser computer.

 

[Idontcare]

In my opinion, it has to do with Intel and their treatment of their customers. They have a documented history of telling their customers (OEMs) exactly how to use their products and if they deviate from that usage, they will get penalized with higher prices (moreso a reduction of discounts).

Taking this information into account, I can see companies being wary of deviating from Intel's guidance without asking permission first; in order to keep on the companies good side and avoid the penalties they have seen in the past for any deviation. This is a side effect to Intel's defacto monopoly that they can do this, although I doubt it will continue through this FTC trial.

That is what I am wondering now because it just seems a little odd, more than a little odd, that virtually 100% of every atom-based laptop/netbook device fails to exceed a certain set of unspoken boundary conditions like ram and screensize.

I mean usually by now there would be some boutique shop trying to eek out an existence in the niche market of say shoving an atom into a laptop with a 15" screen just for the sake of doing it and selling 500 units world-wide.

Sager used to do that kind of stuff, my first 15" laptop actually came with a desktop celeron shoved into a laptop mobo (was not a mobile celeron) and underclocked for people who wanted big screen real-estate and large keyboards but not necessarily the CPU power.

The current lack of diversity in the market offerings with Atom just seem...artificial. Like there is a glass ceiling that no one will dare venture above. For whatever reason...

 

[TuxDave]

The current lack of diversity in the market offerings with Atom just seem...artificial. Like there is a glass ceiling that no one will dare venture above. For whatever reason...

If I had to venture a guess, it would be to prevent the Atom brand from falling into the pits of the Celeron brand. It's an underpowered processor and if they let OEMs stick it in anything and let the customers just suffer, everyone's just gonna say "stay away from Atom, it sucks balls" even if it works fine for a netbook.

That's just my guess. Besides the "restrictions" I'm not sure why any OEM is following along with the plan but I guess there's some self interest somewhere in there too.

 

[Fox5]

That is what I am wondering now because it just seems a little odd, more than a little odd, that virtually 100% of every atom-based laptop/netbook device fails to exceed a certain set of unspoken boundary conditions like ram and screensize.

I mean usually by now there would be some boutique shop trying to eek out an existence in the niche market of say shoving an atom into a laptop with a 15" screen just for the sake of doing it and selling 500 units world-wide.

Sager used to do that kind of stuff, my first 15" laptop actually came with a desktop celeron shoved into a laptop mobo (was not a mobile celeron) and underclocked for people who wanted big screen real-estate and large keyboards but not necessarily the CPU power.

The current lack of diversity in the market offerings with Atom just seem...artificial. Like there is a glass ceiling that no one will dare venture above. For whatever reason...

Microsoft offers discount pricing on atom based computers that don't exceed a certain spec (Determined by MS and Intel, something like no more than 1GB of ram, screen not larger than 10 or 12", the same crappy chipset, harddrive no larger than xxx), so unless you want the cost of windows to triple, you won't exceed them.

 

[21stHermit]

Microsoft offers discount pricing on atom based computers that don't exceed a certain spec (Determined by MS and Intel, something like no more than 1GB of ram, screen not larger than 10 or 12", the same crappy chipset, harddrive no larger than xxx), so unless you want the cost of windows to triple, you won't exceed them.

I think you're correct. Just amazing that WinTel has that much clout, especially in Asia.

 

[lothar]

In my opinion, it has to do with Intel and their treatment of their customers. They have a documented history of telling their customers (OEMs) exactly how to use their products and if they deviate from that usage, they will get penalized with higher prices (moreso a reduction of discounts).

Taking this information into account, I can see companies being wary of deviating from Intel's guidance without asking permission first; in order to keep on the companies good side and avoid the penalties they have seen in the past for any deviation. This is a side effect to Intel's defacto monopoly that they can do this, although I doubt it will continue through this FTC trial.

I'm sure Microsoft has a lot more to do with this than Intel does giving they set all the specifications except screen size.
Microsoft offers discounted prices on Windows 7 Starter Edition and Windows XP used on netbooks.
If a manufacturer wants to deviate from the CPU, RAM, HDD specs which are set by Microsoft, expect to pay the regular OEM prices for their software.

OEM manufacturers can bypass these restrictions by installing Windows 7 Home Premium but the license fee for that OS SKU is much higher than Windows 7 Starter Edition.

Price for Windows XP license on a netbook: $14. (This part I know is a fact)

Price for Windows 7 Starter Edition license on a netbook? No idea, but probably the same as the XP one or pretty close to it. I can't find the starter edition OS on Newegg so maybe it's not something that is even sold anywhere at all besides OEMs like Dell/HP/etc....I also checked Walmart.com but don't see it in their list of OS'es. If it's not being sold by Walmart, I'm 99% sure it's not being sold anywhere given how cheap their products are unless it's an unauthorized sale.

Price for Windows 7 Home Premium SKU lisence on a netbook? No idea, but I'd assume they're paying the regular $105 OEM price or something close to that.

 

[Steelski]

What I saw yestarday. I was very impressed.
An Acer laptop. with a Neo x2 1.6 processor. full sized keyboard (including number pad) dvd drive, HD3200, 6 cell battery, 15.6 inch 16:9 display.
and what is the equivalent of 450 Euros.
this is in bulgaria. and I am not able to find the laptop onlin.e but I think i like it.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

To appease the stock holders

 

[evolucion8]

You'd be lucky if you could get an AVI to play back smoothly on a PIII, which the Atom dose almost effortlessly and with a single core. The atom is way beyond a PIII in the media department.

Still, I can't figure out why the Atom sucks so hard at running operating systems. Its still slower than a PIII in this regard and it doesnt really make any sense. You can run a PIII with 256mbs of SDRAM ram using XP pro and have more power/speed for general office/Internet apps than you would with a decent netbook.

I'm not a fan of the Atom in its current state, but it has potential.

It sucks because the Atom is an "in order" processor, processes that are currently running may stall and stagnate the other processes, not like the Pentium 3 or newer CPU's that are an out or order and will run smooth. I'm not a fan of the Atom's performance.

That netbooks and atom came together really just goes to show the unstoppable ubiquity of x86, you could build something that gives you circa 2004 performance (or worse) but if it will run pre-existing applications (even at a snails pace) then there will be unparalleled demand for that product.

Far from that, in 2003, Intel released the Pentium M and it is much faster than any Intel Atom, before the upgrade, I had my laptop with a Pentium M running at 1.60Ghz and it could smoke my friend's Atom 230 in everything. Atom's general performance is closer to a Pentium 3 based Celeron except in media which it isn't bad, but not even a Pentium 3 stutters with Youtube videos like the Atom do.

 

[Perryg114]

I just bought my wife an Acer 1410 with the dual core SU2300 and it runs real nice and it is barely bigger than a netbook with a 1366x768 11" screen. It will run all day on a charge. It cost a little over $400 and it is about 4 times faster than a netbook. It comes with Win 7 home premium 64 bit. It will do full HD stuff recorded on media center without hickups. It does stutter a little with Hulu but it is watchable. I think it is the graphics processor that is the cause of the stuttering. Hulu seems to be the most graphic intensive thing I have found as far a video content. The internet TV plugin for media center works well but the content is very limited. The internet TV through media center does not stutter. Maybe flash could be optimized to not require so much graphics overhead or maybe intel could come up with some drivers that would help this.

I think my point is here screw the netbook format and get something better.

Perry

 

[Zoomer]

... Acer 1410 with the dual core SU2300 and it runs real nice and it is barely bigger than a netbook with a 1366x768 11" screen. It will run all day on a charge. It cost a little over $400 and it is about 4 times faster than a netbook....
I think my point is here screw the netbook format and get something better.

Perry

This is why atom netbooks that cost >$300 are irrelevant. Too bad there's no way to get a refund for the windows license.