Well, given that they *JUST* started offering these, I'd say none. And it would have likely remained in the "none" category had Microsoft not jumped in. The primary reason they're moving to Arm is to keep Microsoft out. Now obviously, if it threatens Microsoft's bottom line, they'll find a way in, but in the meantime they'll be locked out, which is a plus for me. Plus the lower price point and feature set should make them sell quite well, despite being Arm powered Linux netbooks.
There are plenty of Linux distros that are completely newbie friendly such that even a computer neophite can use them. If my mom can figure out how to use Linux, anyone can. And if you can't see that as possible, you're thinking to small.
Not true. It's a case of lack of information breads ignorance, of which people will naturally flock first to the thing they know best. Microsoft intentionally blocks people from learning about Linux so that they can be assured that customers will always demand Windows, since Linux is so "foreign" to them.

And I've proven this to be true time and again, as have others. Customers who have come into one of the stores I've worked at, or others for that matter, and been presented with the two machines, if you say nothing, they'll almost always grab the Windows one. But we give them an education on what Linux is, and once they've had that little intro course, between 30% and 70% will choose the Linux box hands down. So it's not about who's better, but about how much the customer knows. If they learn all I have to give them, and they still choose Windows, then so be it. That's their choice and they've been informed. But when you keep the user dumb, they're not going to make proper choices.
That was proven false. The return rates that these companies claimed weren't because of Linux. In MSI's case it was because their UI blew chunks. In the case of the two UK distributors, they were given incentives to drop Linux and came up with a lie to explain why, despite selling their Linux units like hotcakes. Walmart regularly sold out of their Linux boxes and for a while they outsold every other PC in the place by 3 to 1. But MS didn't like that and paid them to ditch the line. The EFF has all the proof of this and more. So does the FSF. They do a splendid job of cutting through all the Microsoft lies and FUD that make Linux look like it's better used as a liner for the bit bucket.

Microsoft is about making money. Linux is about freedom and choice. Microsoft wants it so that they're the ONLY choice. Period. There's a big difference. And who do you think is going to encourage OEM's to make Linux seem like the wrong choice? Gee, the one company who benefits by ensuring that Linux doesn't gain any market share. This is the same company that's a multi-time convicted monopolist who's in hot water with the EU, China, and every other government that isn't bought off or bribed into silence.

Another case in point. OLPC. Microsoft came in, threw insane amounts of cash at them and got OLPC to finally give in and agree to put Windows XP on their OLPC and offer it as one of two choices. To date, they haven't sold a single unit with XP on it. Every single unit bought has been Linux. There were a few units bought, but those were all evaluation units, and all were returned shortly after testing. The same thing happened to Intel's classmate PC. To date I have yet to hear of a single classmate pc that sold with Windows XP on it.

Now don't get me wrong here. I don't mind it if people don't like Linux, but for the love of God, don't spread around the FUD of Microsoft. Educate yourself to the truth and spread that instead of the nonsense put out by the same company who wants to fleece you every chance they can get and is responsible for 99% of all computer viruses worldwide. Microsoft is the problem here, not Linux.