News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by dpcan on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @01:47PM (#9298406)
Where is the $149 Windows-Based laptop with SSD, 2-4GB RAM, and moderate graphics, that can run your usual Office to Minecraft software? The Chromebook-killer from Microsoft should be here, but all I hear about are the Surfaces.

Honestly, the only reason my kids don't have Chromebooks is because they don't easily run Minecraft or downloadable games. Sure they can do their school work on them, but they also like to play, and we've already tried messing with Linux on some older desktops.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by raesene9 on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @01:52PM (#9298451)
http://www.amazon.com/HP-Stream-Laptop-Personal-Horizon/dp/B... HP Stream 11 is likely the closest to what you're looking for $199 so slightly more expensive, but a year of Office365 included...
Re:$149 Chromebooks by glenstein on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:00PM (#9299036)
I was going to post this if somebody else didn't. To add one important detail: the HP Stream you linked doesn't just exist as a proof of concept or whatever, which would be one thing, but it's currently outselling all the Chromebooks (and every other laptop for that matter) on Amazon.

Chromebooks dominated in 2014, but they've been bumped and I'm not sure they'll ever be back at the top. Rather than a sea change, it looks like Google was just ahead of its competitors for a year, and now that year has come and gone.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by pjmlp on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:52PM (#9299802)
Actually that was a USA only phenomenon, I never saw Chromebooks live in Europe.

Here in Germany, some chain stores do have a few of them at their little corner being ignored by everyone.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by tdkl on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @06:03PM (#9300219)
It's also perhaps that Germans are vary before an OS which is an internet machine and comes from a company where main revenue is ad business.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by Nursie on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @06:16PM (#9300280)
Pretty sure Chromebooks dominated amazon.co.uk for a while too...
Re:$149 Chromebooks by aikah on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @05:17AM (#9302504)
> Pretty sure Chromebooks dominated amazon.co.uk for a while too...

Pretty sure it didn't.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by Nursie on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @02:18PM (#9305657)
I wasn't 100% so I had a quick look. Here's a blog post from 2012 with the Samsung/ARM Chromebook shown as the top seller in laptops in the UK (you have to scroll right down to the bottom).

http://googlesystem.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/chromebooks-best-...

You're right though, it wasn't 2014, it was 2012.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by jasonlotito on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:25PM (#9298752)
For those interested, here is a review

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8784/hp-stream-11-review-a-new...

tl;dr: "...if you have been wanting a Chromebook running Windows, be sure to check out the HP Stream."

Re:$149 Chromebooks by bane on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @06:30PM (#9300352)
A bit more expensive

http://www.costco.com/ASUS-T100TAR-Transformer-Book-2-in-1-T...

detachable Touchscreen tablet, quad core, 2GB RAM, 32GB Storage

Re:$149 Chromebooks by rsync on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:52PM (#9299402)
Is it possible to install Linux on the HP Stream ?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by Sanddancer on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:01PM (#9299463)
Almost certainly so. It's got a real bios, so you should be able to change how it boots.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by voltagex_ on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:07PM (#9299897)
If it's anything like the other devices in that series it will be 32 bit UEFI, which not many distros have out of the box. You can certainly build 32 bit GRUB. http://askubuntu.com/questions/392719/32-bit-uefi-boot-suppo...
Re:$149 Chromebooks by okaram on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:03PM (#9299874)
I'm running ubuntu on it :)
Re:$149 Chromebooks by rbanffy on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @11:07PM (#9301279)
I doubt the battery life is any longer than the ARM based competition. "Better" depends on what value you put on which feature. For me, I wouldn't use a Chromebook because Emacs needs Alt and Super keys.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by dpcan on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:37PM (#9300076)
I've also seen this system in my search, but it doesn't meet the criteria:

1) This system is listed at $199, not $149.

2) In the questions at the bottom, users do not recommend this as a Minecraft or gaming system.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by pyrocat on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:44PM (#9298905)
the first hit is always free
Re:$149 Chromebooks by pyrocat on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @07:42PM (#9300628)
downvotes for disagreeing with the O365 business model? thanks hacker news!
Re:$149 Chromebooks by elchief on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:15PM (#9298639)
Microsoft isn't as good at collecting and reselling all of your personal information, so have to charge the actual cost of the hardware.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by daeken on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:17PM (#9298669)
> Microsoft isn't as good at collecting and reselling all of your personal information, so have to charge the actual cost of the hardware.

Google does not sell your personal information in any way. They use it for their own advertising purposes, but they don't sell it to anyone, in any form.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by dsl on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:26PM (#9298756)
It is a derivitative product, you're just splitting hairs.

As squeaky clean as everyone in the valley believes Google to be, even most Googlers would be surprised with the type of work and contacts taken on by Google Federal (hint: it's not just Google Apps for the military). Here is a list of their current unclassified military contracts: https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?indexName=awardfull...

Re:$149 Chromebooks by linkregister on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:38PM (#9298847)
What's sinister in that list? I just see things that look like purchase orders for Google search appliances, a vague "research" contract at Army Research Labs, and what looks to be mapping consulting by NGA.

If you're going to make a claim and drop a link on us, please tell us what's actually there to support your claim.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by Sanddancer on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:03PM (#9299476)
The research contract is the stuff with their Boston Dynamics subdivision -- all the abusable quad walker robots and stuff.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by asuffield on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:11PM (#9299919)
(Standard disclaimer: my opinions, not my employer's. Not representing anybody else. I work at Google, not on these projects.)

Most googlers who are also engineers can find out what most of these things are, and I would expect many are already aware of what those projects are likely to be. It is a core part of our culture that we share information openly within engineering, and don't leak it.

We can't tell you what's happening. That doesn't mean we don't know.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by jrockway on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @10:01PM (#9301109)
The grandparent comment makes it sound nefarious, and there are a lot of people that dislike the US... but it doesn't sound too bad to me to bid on contracts for a democratically-elected government.

The NSA thing is disappointing and it's important that the electorate hold the government accountable, but democracy has not broken down yet, and the situation isn't quite as dire as, say, North Korea.

(Waiting for the "google employee compares US government to North Korea" headline, sigh...)

Re:$149 Chromebooks by icebraining on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:34PM (#9298815)
It's not about being "clean". It's that the most profitable way to go about it is not to sell the info, but rent its use over and over again, keeping the actual data closed (except to LE, of course).

If you assume they're completely profit driven, it still makes sense for them to protect your data from other companies.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by wehadfun on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:37PM (#9298843)
Found something called Robogator in there
Re:$149 Chromebooks by nevir on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:21PM (#9299172)
Re:$149 Chromebooks by razvanh on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:23PM (#9298726)
advertising is selling your information to advertisers.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by Karunamon on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:26PM (#9298762)
Even that's not accurate. Advertising is selling access to people matching a certain demographic profile to advertisers.

They maintain a demographic profile (arguable: how accurate and comprehensive it is) by way of this line of business, but at no point is that profile sold to advertisers.

At no point has Google, or any other reputable ad network, had a system whereby you can download the information, personal or otherwise, of a few million people.

This is misleading and hyperbolic. Stop it.

If you want a view as to what advertising is actually like and what an advertiser can actually see, go sign up for Adwords and step through the process. I guarantee it is not as sketchy as you make it out to be.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by ksk on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @06:10PM (#9300251)
Google has indeed sold information to the NSA.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/09/23/attveri...

Re:$149 Chromebooks by asuffield on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @07:44PM (#9300635)
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion, not my employer's. Not representing anybody but me. I work at Google, not on lawful intercept.)

That's not what this article says. This article is about what happens when the government lawfully issues a warrant to obtain somebody's private data, and orders a private company to give them the data. When this happens the company has some rights to recover their costs from the government.

You may not like what the US government is doing here. I certainly don't. But it's still the law, and companies that operate in the US have to comply with it.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by ksk on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @11:06PM (#9301272)
>But it's still the law, and companies that operate in the US have to comply with it.

It's interesting that you guys figured out how to circumvent the US tax law, by hiding money in tax havens. I guess dodging the NSA warrants is not a priority.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by asuffield on Thursday April 02, 2015 @06:42PM (#9313616)
Re:$149 Chromebooks by Karunamon on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @11:23PM (#9301338)
The tax code is byzantine and full of loopholes.

Warrants are comparatively straightforward. The paper says "jump", you say "how high?" or else. In any case, handed a warrant signed by a judge (kangaroo FISA court or otherwise), you hand over the info first and fight it later. Anything else is obstruction.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by ksk on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @12:02AM (#9301480)
OK, your opinion on warrants is noted.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by stdgy on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:29PM (#9298780)
Google is NOT in the business of selling information to advertisers. They're in the business of choosing who to advertise products to based on the information they collect and hold onto.

There is a significant difference between the two.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by jboy55 on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:57PM (#9299012)
Google is the advertiser. Just replace the word 'Google' with 'Doubleclick'. It starts to make sense.

When you use mail.doubleclick.com for your email, and www.doubleclick.com to search the web, all from your DoubleClick based phone, its pretty easy to understand the situation.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by Karunamon on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:12PM (#9299125)
Nobody here is under any misconceptions that Google doesn't get most of their money from advertising - where we diverge is what their overall mission is and how good or bad those ad tactics are, and if they represent a good tradeoff for the services they provide.

Personally, I've got no issues letting them build a better profile in return for some of the best web services out there. I owe my career to the excellence of their search product.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by towelguy on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:08PM (#9299901)
I find duckduckgo equally effective and they don't need to build a profile on me to do it.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by Karunamon on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:18PM (#9299969)
What often gets ignored in that value judgement is that the profile can lead to more relevant search results. (Subjectively, Google's results get better when I'm signed in.)

At least for me, using DDG is like stepping back into the 90's as far as search result quality goes.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by tracker1 on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @07:47PM (#9300655)
Agreed, I tried it for about a month, and went back to google... with my profile information, my search results tend to be much better.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by maaku on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:27PM (#9299209)
> They use it for their own advertising purposes, but they don't sell it to anyone, in any form.

Some people wouldn't distinguish those two.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by jhall1468 on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:55PM (#9300168)
Some people don't distinguish a knife from an elephant, but those people are wrong too.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by maaku on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @06:09PM (#9300249)
If I don't want people paying someone else to use my information, I don't care whether that party ever actually sees it or not.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by bduerst on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @11:36PM (#9301377)
I don't get it - are you saying you don't like knives and elephants?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by gonzo on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:23PM (#9298734)
With Google, the product is you. You (your demographic profile) is sold, by Google, to their advertisers.

This includes potentially identifying information.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by patmcc on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:38PM (#9298855)
That's completely untrue. Advertisers come to Google and say "we want to sell this, people in these demographics would like it" and Google shows it to me or you based on what it knows about us.

Google knows lots about me; people who buy adwords don't.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by exceptthis on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:05PM (#9299067)
They know that every person who clicks on their add is within the demographic profile they targeted. They do, indirectly, buy that information - and there's no way to operate Google's business model without that remaining true.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by pmelendez on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:06PM (#9299077)
Google does help them (google's advertisers) to track you indirectly. Not throught the adwords networks but throught the RTB network (DoubleClick).

You can easily validate this by checking all the "pixels" (in the RTB sense) that are being deployed by Google. In their defense, they do mask a lot of things so stuff like the full IP address are not available (last time I worked on that they just give you the three first segments) but still quite a few information was available to target your demographic segment.

Edit:

For downvoters and people curious about tracking pixels: - https://support.google.com/dfp_premium/answer/1347585?hl=en - https://support.google.com/dfp_premium/answer/2508388?hl=en

Re:$149 Chromebooks by bduerst on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:51PM (#9299799)
Tracking pixels are pretty standard for the web analytics industry, and are a tool to aggregate information, not sell. Google, Facebook, Optimizely, Marketo, etc. all use them.

If you really want to learn more, you can read the wikipedia page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tracking_pixel

Re:$149 Chromebooks by lern_too_spel on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:24PM (#9298742)
Microsoft is as good at collecting personal information as anybody. Collecting information isn't hard. They're just not very good at making that information useful to the people who provide that information or to themselves, via advertising or otherwise.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by kakisoop on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:09PM (#9299518)
could you tell me which personal information of yours was sold by google?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by dudus on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:52PM (#9298966)
These devices are made by other companies not Google. How do they profit from advertisement. Are you implying that Google pays these companies when they sell their own devices with Google software in it?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by CrazyCatDog on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:34PM (#9299266)
Yes. It's no longer a secret that Google has begun to share ad-revenue with oem's. Fortunately, Microsoft is in no position to do so.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by sjtechie on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @09:56PM (#9301095)
Shilling for Microsoft huh? What makes you think that Google sells your personal info?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by mark_l_watson on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:28PM (#9299218)
Earlier this year I bought an HP Stream 11" laptop directly from Microsoft for $199 (no crapware if you buy a Windows machine directly from Microsoft). The build quality is good, and with a cheap 32gig extra flash memory card it is fine for web browsing and some light weight development (I use IntelliJ). This laptop came with about $140 of free software and services coupons - perhaps if those were not included, Microsoft could approach your $149 price point.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by Tloewald on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:38PM (#9300084)
I doubt you're paying for the "free" software -- it's all loss-leaders. If anything it may be reducing the cost of the device.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by spyder on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:16PM (#9299151)
There are Windows 8.1 tablets that are not far from that:

http://www.tinydeal.com/windows-tablets-c-997_1002.html?zeni...

These have the Quad Core Intel Atom Bay-Trail processor which is good enough for non compute demanding things and even some older games are running fine on them, also a quick search shows that Minecraft too runs playable on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7dBOaHmW94

Re:$149 Chromebooks by e40 on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:25PM (#9298750)
My son uses a Chromebook for homework and a Windows PC for games. I consider it a huge feature that they are separate devices. Much too tempting otherwise.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by analog31 on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @12:24AM (#9301588)
We're doing a similar thing but with a Raspberry Pi that I've stripped down so it runs nothing but a plain text editor. It's just what we had lying around when the issue came to a head. There was the temptation of the Web, but even the fonts and settings of a regular word processor were too distracting. He's happy with the solution. It's a little bit geeky and weird, which is an attraction for him.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by publicfig on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:01PM (#9298531)
Minecraft is a pretty intensive application, don't be fooled just because the graphics seem to be less clean. There are lighter versions of Minecraft for different platforms, but those are often incredibly limited and only support the specific platform.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by kidlogic on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:46PM (#9300123)
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...

Codestarter's Ubuntu Package comes with Minecraft and other programming/educational resources.

I am running an Acer 720 with 4gb of Ram and 128gb SSD - best laptop I've ever owned.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by newsreader on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:45PM (#9298909)
Got this one for my granddaughter for Christmas and she loves it: Asus11634 Laptop Intel Atom 2GB Memory 32GB Flash

Paid $148.53 plus tax at BestBuy.com. At first I thought that the 32GB drive would be a problem but with the OneDrive integration she has plenty of space.

She also plays Minecraft and other games without any problems.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by maaku on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:26PM (#9299195)
> Honestly, the only reason my kids don't have Chromebooks is because they don't easily run Minecraft or downloadable games.

Some parents would consider this a good thing.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by drzaiusapelord on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:10PM (#9299107)
There are Windows tablets at that price range that can run office. Not idea if they can run Minecraft, considering its a horribly unoptimized java application.

The HP Stream 7 and 8 has an x86 1.8ghz atom chip in it. BYOK. The Stream 11 has a keyboard but chimes in at $199. Games using DirectX and native libraries work. There are a lot of Stream 7 and 8 youtube videos showing gaming performance.

If anything, the Chromebook is overpriced. It really should be a $49 near disposable laptop. Even then, in the age of cheap tablets, it may not be more than an education market novelty.

More here: http://www.gizmag.com/five-windows-81-tablets-under-200/3497...

Re:$149 Chromebooks by 72deluxe on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @10:29AM (#9303820)
Very true, those HP Stream devices look competitive compared to these Chromebooks.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by smackfu on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:08PM (#9298586)
This is running an ARM chip, not an x86 one.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by higherpurpose on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:25PM (#9298751)
What does that have to do with anything. Minecraft runs on ARM.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by smackfu on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:30PM (#9298784)
Minecraft, yes. Other Windows software, maybe, if you are lucky.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by jonah on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:35PM (#9299281)
Re:$149 Chromebooks by grok2 on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:51PM (#9299801)
HP Stream comes pretty close (I think they are better than the Chromebooks though a bit pricier) -- http://store.hp.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?eS...
Re:$149 Chromebooks by fsiefken on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:35PM (#9298820)
put linux on the chromebook and you can run libreoffice, gnumeric and minecraft
Re:$149 Chromebooks by have_humility on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @05:46PM (#9300128)
Have you done this? If so, what JRE are you using for Minecraft? I know that trying to run Android Studio with the OpenJDK JRE on hardware with a similar clock speed, is pret-ty slow even when that hardware is x86. I can't imagine what it would be like on ARM.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by josefresco on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:03PM (#9298551)
$149 is ridiculously cheap and I don't think Microsoft wants, or should want to operate in that market.

At the $200-$300 price range there are many Windows choices - most with significantly better hardware and features.

Microsoft: Leave the sub $200 market to others and leverage your online services to sell to those consumers.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by SwellJoe on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:22PM (#9298719)
Microsoft ate IBM and others from the bottom, because the margins were too low on PC vs mainframe and minis. And now, you're suggesting Microsoft should accept being eaten from the bottom because the margins are too low (I guess that's what you're arguing). Classic innovator's dilemma scenario.

Those who don't learn from history will repeat it. Even those who made the history in question.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by cardine on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:35PM (#9298824)
What makes the Chromebook a disruptive innovation?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by austinsharp on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:42PM (#9298887)
It's cheaper and simpler with less functionality. Isn't that the broad idea [1]?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation

Re:$149 Chromebooks by cardine on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:58PM (#9299014)
A disruptive innovation is an innovation that creates a new market. What market does the Chromebook create that a $200 netbook didn't already create?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by SwellJoe on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:13PM (#9299131)
Sometimes, all it takes to be disruptive is to be cheaper.

"What market does the Chromebook create that a $200 netbook didn't already create?"

I prefer to think we mostly find markets rather than create them, generally speaking. Chromebook may find a market in India or Africa or China. Places where a mobile device was everybody's first experience with personal computing, so the idea of it being intimately tied to the network isn't so strange. And, just as importantly, where $50 is a weeks wages so it seems a lot more important to spend 25% less on the device.

I can see how me invoking Innovator's Dilemma here is possibly a stretch from some perspectives. Even if it is not disruptive innovation in the sense you prefer, it is still seeming more and more likely to continue to erode Microsoft's dominance in the places they have always been very, very strong: Cheap home PCs.

Also, I think the argument could be made that this is a better product for less money. Windows on such scanty hardware is a pretty rough experience. Chrome OS on tiny machines isn't so bad. And, for people who already only use their computer for Internet stuff, there are no benefits to the Windows experience and plenty of negatives.

So, this isn't a situation of, "Why would I get a dinky little fake computer if it's only $50 less than a good computer with Windows?" It's more of a "Why would I spend more for a computer that is slow, clunky, has a bunch of crap I don't need/want only so I can use also-ran webmail, online docs, etc. when I can get the market leading stuff for less?"

I dunno, really. I'm just trying to imagine this from the perspective of someone who didn't grow up in a world dominated by Microsoft, because that's the world we now live in. The world is now dominated by Google with Apple and Facebook as thought leaders on the periphery. Things are different now, and getting a computer with Windows on it just isn't a thing that (young) people care so much about.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by hyperpallium on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:05PM (#9299489)
I think MS's reaction will be interesting. When linux netbooks came out, they aggressively discounted Windows for them, fending off the linux threat from below.

MS/intel already have some incredibly cheap tablets (and Windows 8.1 reportedly runs well on them). Seems logical that MS will discount again. All they have to lose is everything.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by SwellJoe on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:36PM (#9299708)
That was an interesting, and scary, wielding of their power actually. I'm happy they don't have quite that much power anymore.

The reason I say it was scary was that it was a moment in time where you could watch a class of computers from one generation to the next get worse because of limits imposed by Microsoft on OEMs. I bought a Dell Mini 9 just before they switched to the Mini 10. The Mini 10 actually had half the memory capacity of the Mini 9 (1GB vs 2GB in the Mini 9), because Microsoft defined "netbook" to have a maximum memory size and CPU power, which was lower than what netbooks had already climbed up to. Microsoft didn't want to see their margins decrease on "real" computers, but didn't want to cede the low end market to Linux. They saw the power of cheap then, and will probably see the power of cheap now. The difference is they don't have enough clout with enough manufacturers to dumb down these small computers.

So, yeah, I'd be surprised if they don't respond. They already have very low cost Windows Phone licenses in order to compete with Android (but it's not really working). Honestly, I believe we're entering a post-Microsoft world, even on the desktop. It'll be five or ten more years before Windows is no longer commonly seen, but it's already not really a foregone conclusion that computers should have Windows on them.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by beagle3 on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @06:02PM (#9300208)
The people who downvoted SwellJoe: Can you explain? The facts about the "netbooks" are verifiable facts, see e.g. [0]. That's a business version of "embrace, extinguish" (no extension here), and it's classic for the Bill Gates / Ballmer era.

Microsoft was strongarming the manufacturers - in 2009, they could still do that easily (and they might still be able to today). The carrot and stick was reduced Windows licensing - but only if you make netbooks unusable. And thus netbooks died. I hope that Nadella's Microsoft is not like that - it looks way better than the Ballmer days - but having been bitten multiple times, I'll wait until I trust Microsoft again.

[0] http://www.pcworld.com/article/169919/5_netbooks_microsoft_h...

Re:$149 Chromebooks by SwellJoe on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @07:46PM (#9300649)
I have a theory about humans having a generally short memory for corporate malfeasance, or to put it in a better light, having a much more forgiving nature than I do.

I also tend to get down-voted whenever I talk about nasty stuff Apple has done.

And, occasionally, when I do get a reply rather than or in addition to a downvote it will be of the form: "Well, X also does what you accused Y of." i.e., complaints about the monopolistic practices of Microsoft will result in, "Well, Google is also a monopoly, and I think they're worse because of this other thing." Which, while often true statements, do not provide any reason to dismiss the assertions about Microsoft they are responding to.

I am occasionally disappointed in HN. But, that's OK, because HN is occasionally disappointed in me.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by vdaniuk on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @01:58AM (#9301860)
Consider the HN audience and the disproportionate percentage of megacorps employees in it. Actionable community consensus that is being critical of Microsoft/Apple/Google is now nearly non-existent on HN.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by eli on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:26PM (#9299196)
These things are only obvious in retrospect. Why did the iPod create a new market when the Nomad MP3 Player already existed?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by hyperpallium on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:13PM (#9299553)
I agree Christensen often seems a bit post hoc, but I think at least trying to see if there's a new market can help (as opposed to attacking the fortified hill of an established market).

One could argue the Nomad's market was much smaller (most people who bought iPods had never heard of it), partly because of Apple's aggressive advertising... which certainly helps "create" a market.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by millstone on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @02:35AM (#9301957)
In the case of the iPod, the answer is surely the iTunes Music Store, which was the first legal online store that sold popular music in digital formats.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by DanBC on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @02:45AM (#9301993)
No it wasn't.

Here's an article from 1999 about a variety of digital music distribution.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb99/articles/netnotes.559....

Re:$149 Chromebooks by hyperpallium on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @01:56AM (#9301855)
That wiki's definition is simpler than I'd thought possible. But a "new market" includes a new group of people (doing the same old thing), and the same people doing the same thing in a new way (e.g. people with landline phones using cell phones).

Just in the comments here are mentioned: low-hassle machine for grandparents (which the HNer has to admin, who influences the decision); low cost and low hassle machine for school kids (which the school has to admin, an who decides); second or third backup machine; machines for the developing world; for people working mostly in chrome browser (which is faster than on Windows), which includes most of us, and some HN even dev in web IDEs.

Cheaper + low-hassle + web-optimised also makes them attractive, to almost everyone.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by melling on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:28PM (#9298770)
I agree. Microsoft should ignore this because there's no money in it. Still, it's nice that a couple billion new people will be able to afford their first computer.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by 72deluxe on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @10:28AM (#9303810)
Yes, but it's a tethered computer with a dependency on a mainframe.

Do these poor people that this device is targeting also have sufficient money to pay for constant network access? The total cost of ownership for one of these suddenly becomes very high when you factor that in.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by zer0rest on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @08:49PM (#9300891)
it's an awful computer
Re:$149 Chromebooks by ctz on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:24PM (#9298746)
Well, just this week a purchased a HP Stream 7 Signature edition for £50 (~=$50). Microsoft is definitely in the market.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by newsreader on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:16PM (#9299577)
I got one for my wife about a month ago. Paid about $100 dollars for it, she uses it almost every day for email, Facebook, and browsing the internet.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by bmsleight on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:51PM (#9299395)
Re:$149 Chromebooks by ctz on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:40PM (#9299729)
For technology, the currency difference is almost entirely lost in poorer buying power and tax inclusive pricing.

eg. a 5K iMac is 2499 USD and 1999 GBP. That makes it about 3000 USD. Using that basis, the £50 tablet would retail in the US at 60 USD.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by tluyben2 on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:36PM (#9299706)
I have a few $300 Windows 8.1 machines and although they might have objectively better hardware, my Chromebook is nicer to work with. It feels a lot less flaky than some of the Asus and Acer $300-350 machines with Windows imho.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by higherpurpose on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @02:23PM (#9298730)
A $150 Windows-based laptop would be a crappy netbook. Chrome should run significantly better on Chrome OS than it does on Windows or IE does on Windows for that matter.

Also, Chromebooks usually seem to be targeted at kids or tech illiterate folks who don't want the complexity of Windows. Even a $99 Windows machine won't change that.

And what about the security of Chrome OS? It's "virtually" unhackable, while Windows...well, it's Windows.

As for Minecraft, Google has been promising Android apps on Chromebooks, so maybe before long that will work, too. But as others have said, it's still $150 hardware. So I wouldn't expect too much from it.

Also, last I checked Office also runs in the browser now? Microsoft seems to be making quite a big deal about that actually.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by pmelendez on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @03:29PM (#9299225)
>Chrome should run significantly better on Chrome OS than it does on Windows or IE does on Windows for that matter.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. In my machine IE and Firefox beats Chrome performance almost in everything. And I have seen ~$100 tablets running Windows 8.1 and the performance is far from crappy.

Re:$149 Chromebooks by Sanddancer on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:12PM (#9299548)
I've got a $100 tablet and $30 bluetooth keyboard running windows. This means that I have a small form factor machine that I can develop on, and with a usb otg cord, I can connect to near anything I want. Finally, it comes with a real bios, so I can install whatever operating system I want on it, without doing silly things like removing screws.
Re:$149 Chromebooks by bobajeff on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:35PM (#9299703)
I would like more details on this. What kind of development are you doing? What was the specific tablet and bluetooth keyboard you got?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by Sanddancer on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @06:09PM (#9300244)
Development is mostly using Avr Studio to do embedded stuff. The tablet was the Asus VivoTab8, the non-note version, unfortunately. The bluetooth keyboard was just some generic keyboard and case [1]. My only complaint really is that the meta keys are cranky within putty, but other than that, it's been pretty solid for me.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KCKXIXE/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_d...

Re:$149 Chromebooks by tolmasky on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @04:27PM (#9299654)
Chromebook can now run Android apps (a few now, more as time goes on). That means soon people will be able to play their android games on them, including Minecraft pocket?
Re:$149 Chromebooks by sjg007 on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @01:40PM (#9305358)
It's sad because Minecraft was originally Java...