The article makes an implicit claim that netbooks can't do what most people do with their laptops.

Sure, it doesn't run Photoshop and you can't write a novel on it and it won't run shiny OS X flyout effects. But that's not what netbook buyers would use a laptop for, anyway.

The author is correct by making the notion that the target audience is a bit unclear - but fails to see that a netbook is not a *cross between* a smartphone and a notebook, except for maybe size and form factor. The point is, if I wanted a truly portable notebook I had to shell out lot$ of fund$ to get an ultraportable, which I would use for very-very menial tasks (like the occasional document, web, skype, etc) when on the go. So, it's not smartphone vs notebook. It's notebook without the bulk and cost. Of course you don't want to type or surf 8 hours on it or compile Qt. For those puroposes you DO HAVE an alternative, you just need to add a 1000$ to get it in the same form factor.

In other words (when we are throwing analogies at each other), the author tries to analyse a bobcat excavator is comparing it to a Krupp Bagger and a Trowel. Fair enough, he concludes that the bobcat sucks both as a Bager and as a trowel. Except he has no use (or idea of the use) of a bobcat excavator.

Whaaaaat!? We got to the second page without a car analogy?!

Ok here it is:

Smartphone - city scooter - it's small, fast, you can escape the trafic, can park it where ever you want, it's fuel efficient.

Tablet - small car (Smart, Mini Cooper) - it's not as mobile as the scooter, but still small enough to park almost everywhere (even sideways), it's still very fuel efficient compared to the SUV, you can take a second person easily or some luggage, it's safer to be inside a vehicle in case of an accident.

Laptop - SUV - big, expensive, eats up a lot of fuel, it's difficult to drive it or park it in the city, but you can drive it even offroads, can transport 5 people and lots of luggage, very safe because of size.

But the book analogy is spot on anyways, because it shows exactly 1:1 the usecases.

I like the way the blogger thinks, but he's wrong about the netbook. Unlike Monarch Burger's "apple pie", it hasn't been a flop.

I personally don't see the point of Big Heavy Expensive Laptops at all. My "zone of suck" is all in the right side of his chart. If you must lug something bigger than a tablet around with you, buy something small and light, like a netbook, for those times when there isn't a computer nearby. The rest of the time, use full sit-down desktop computers.

And don't give me this "I need a full laptop because I want to do my work in a cafe" crap. Either use a tablet / netbook / smartphone or go home and do your work there. Stop sitting there all alone at a table with an empty coffee cup and your giant laptop. Cafes are for socializing with real people, or at least watching other people. Not for staring into your computer for hours.

I bought a netbook and it utterly failed to displace my tablet in any way shape or form. Currently it's sitting on the kitchen counter as a recipe machine.

If it's not pocketable, it aint worth the hassle.

The article really is to metaphorical. And, by trying to stay metaphorical, it ignores a number of points....


I can only speak for myself, but I have found a number of use cases for, well, eletronical devices with a graphical user interface that are able to install and run third party applications. (is this abstract enough?) - plus: i have found a number of devices i don't have a use case for. And what should I say? My own experience differs a lot from whats in the article.

Device #1: Desktop PC
Most of the time I work there. No restrictions, everything goes, cool.

Device #2: MID or tablet
small, 4"-5" touch screen device that's a morning paper on the toilet, a movie player on the train and my blogging/voip device when i'm on holiday. restrictions because of size and clumsy touch screen technology, but otherwise fine.

Device #3: phone
very small, 2.2", lightweight, non-touchscreen device for - oh, making phone calls. it also is a low-quality camera (incl. video), navigation device and gets me online (mail+web) if i need quick information, but don't really want to surf for a longer period of time. restricted maybe, but actually it doesn't feel like it because everything it does beyond phone+text messaging is luxury. Main point: the "always with me, don't care if i lose it"-device.

Device #4: mini-laptop or netbook
stricly in bed or on the couch. usually nothing but surfing. when a tablet/MID is too small or (especially) when its text input there is too slow/clumsy. only few restricions compared to PC, only everythings smaller.


So, this is what I have and use and need. I would replace any of these devices if they break twoday. But there's other devices I wouldn't buy because I don't need them:

Standard Laptop:
Too big and expensive. Not comfortable enough for me to use on the couch, not good enough to replace desktop... Simply not worth having one.

Brick-Size Smartphone:
Brick-size (which means something like: more than 120g in weight) smart phones are not what I look for in phones. I want phones smaller. Also, I don't want touchscreens: I want one-handed use with the tactile feedback of real keys.

If you bought a bobcat to replace the krupp bagger, then it's not exactly a suprise it didn't displace it. Today's netbooks are not notebook replacements, although in some cases they can serve as such (just as my NIT does). The author of TFA fails to see that, too.

i would say one can, if one can live without fancy stuff like automatic spell checking

heh, got something of the same issue here, picked up a eeepc 900 from a shelf clearing sale, and beyond keeping the eeebuntu updated (xandros did maybe survive 24 hours) im not really using it much...

still, the biggest issue with it right now is battery life, as its celeron powered, im looking at maybe 3 hours. so im planning to get a bigger third party battery to see if that can make it more "mobile".

I didn't buy it as a laptop replacement. That's why I have a desktop.