Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Portables Linux

Video Review of Hivision's $100 ARM-Based Android Laptop 220

Posted by timothy from the toward-marginal-cost dept.
Charbax writes "The Android laptops are coming. Thanks to cheap ARM-powered laptops made in China, and the latest, most optimized Android software, we can soon buy usable $100 laptops in all the supermarkets. In this video, I test the web browsing speed on the new Rockchip rk2808 ARM9-based PWS700CA laptop by Shenzhen-based Hivision Co Ltd. Web browsing on AJAX-heavy websites is surprisingly snappy, and could only be even faster if ARM11, ARM Cortex A8 or A9 processors were used and if it was configured with slightly more than 128MB RAM. How soon will Google release the $100 Google laptop?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video Review of Hivision's $100 ARM-Based Android Laptop More

Video Review of Hivision's $100 ARM-Based Android Laptop

Comments Filter:

  • Other distros? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:43PM (#30958294) Homepage Journal

    If I can put ubuntu on it I will be interested.

    • I don't think you'd want to run Ubuntu with a full-blown Gnome desktop but it should do fine with Debian, a light-weight window manager, and a sensible selection of applications.

    • Re:Other distros? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sasayaki ( 1096761 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:56PM (#30958394)

      Other distros? Sure would be nice, but the fact that they're ARM means it probably won't be ready just yet. This, by the way, is fantastic news.

      The greatest thing about these laptops is, if they're as good as the article claims, the fact that they're ARM processors means that there won't be a version of Windows out for them for ages/ever.

      That means that Microsoft can't just use its market share to bury the Linux versions by heavily discounting the OS, while using their deals with retailers to make sure they only stock the Windows versions, all the while pressuring the laptop manufacturers to increase the specs on them so they can run Windows 7 instead of XP which they're selling for so cheap (to compete with 'free') they're not making any money off it.

      • Other distros? Sure would be nice, but the fact that they're ARM means it probably won't be ready just yet.

        SHR [openmoko.org] would probably work with a bit of kernel tweaking.

      • Debian GNU/Linux on ARM

        Current Status:

        Debian fully supports a port to little-endian ARM. As of our latest release, Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.3, the following ARM sub-architectures are fully supported:

        * footbridge: we fully support Netwinder machines and Simtec's CATS evaluation board
        * iop32x: we support some IOP32x based Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices, such as the Thecus N2100 and GLAN Tank
        * ixp4xx: we support the popu

      • The greatest thing about these laptops is, if they're as good as the article claims, the fact that they're ARM processors means that there won't be a version of Windows out for them for ages/ever.

        Oops.... [maplin.co.uk]

  • 720p playback on a 800x480 screen?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ashitaka ( 27544 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:52PM (#30958354) Homepage

    From the article: "800×480 screen, 720p Video playback support"

    Someone care to enlighten me as to how you get a 720 progressive-scan image on a screen that is only 480 pixels high?

    • Re:720p playback on a 800x480 screen?? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheKidWho ( 705796 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:55PM (#30958378)

      Easy, through the VGA out port.

    • Re:720p playback on a 800x480 screen?? (Score:5, Informative)

      by tchuladdiass ( 174342 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:55PM (#30958384) Homepage

      Sure. You can download a 720p video, and play it on the device. You don't have to pre-convert it to 800x480 (or 400x240, like I have to for my n810). That's all that spec means, is the source video can be 720p.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fredjh ( 1602699 )

      External output? That would be incredible.

    • External monitor connector? Just a guess, far be it for me to read TFA.
    • The extra (naughty) bits are squeezed out in playback. ;)

    • Re:720p playback on a 800x480 screen?? (Score:5, Funny)

      by deniable ( 76198 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @09:27PM (#30958574)
      800 > 720, so turn it sideways. And now for the humor impaired...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bazorg ( 911295 )
      While we are at it, someone care to enlighten me as to why everytime there is a discussion about blueray, cinema and HDTV Slashdot turns into a whinge party on how HD content all sucks, there is not enough HD content on TV, in the shops, and you'd have to be stupid to spend a penny upgrading your screen; but whenever people are talking about any new computer - or anything with a screen on it actually - there's always someone who wants to play HD films on it?

      same on gizmodo, engadget, ...

  • Cheap Enough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:52PM (#30958356)
    My $350 netbook is still expensive enough for me to be somewhat protective of it it. At $100, it becomes something that is tossed somewhat casually into a backpack, or if it's small enough, a coat pocket. I'd buy a couple.
    • Meh. Buy one, and if it breaks in six months, buy one with better specs to replace it. There are a few devices with similar specs hitting the market at around this price at the moment, so I'll probably pick one up before the summer. Ideally something with a screen that works outside, so I can use it in the park.

  • I'll believe it when I can buy it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by langelgjm ( 860756 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:56PM (#30958390) Journal

    We've been hearing about ARM laptops/netbooks/smartbooks for over a year now. They were demoed at CES 2009, and promised to be delivered during 2009. Nothing came. They were demoed at CES 2010, and promised to be delivered during 2010.

    I can't wait to slap down $200 to $300 for an ultralight, long-battery life, ARM-based netbook running Linux. But until they make it out of video reviews and trade shows and into stores or online for purchase, what good are they?

    Lenovo Skylight is pretty much the first firm offering we've seen, but it ain't cheap. The Touchbook seems to be a Beagleboard in a nice case, and isn't being mass-produced like other netbooks. Now that the iPad is out (with an ARM-based processor) and MSI et al. have ARM offerings in the pipeline, with manufacturers finally grow some balls, realize they can offer a non-Intel machine and still use Intel on their other machines, and offer us some cheap ARM netbooks?

    • The Smart Q5 and Q7 are shipping. The Nokia 770, N800 and N810 all shipped. The iPad is shipping in a couple of months.

      • Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it. (Score:4, Informative)

        by langelgjm ( 860756 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @09:54PM (#30958748) Journal

        The Smart Q5 and Q7 are shipping. The Nokia 770, N800 and N810 all shipped. The iPad is shipping in a couple of months.

        None of those are netbooks. They're all tablet-format devices. As far as I can tell, the Touchbook is the only ARM-based netbook (in the sense of having a dedicated keyboard) that you can actually go and order right now (and it's actually backordered, so you can't in fact receive it anytime soon).

        Fine if you want a tablet - I don't. I want an ARM netbook.

    • Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @10:03PM (#30958824)

      I thought everyone knew what happened in 2008. At the 2008 CES dozens of ARM "netbooks" running Linux were displayed and a big hit at the show. They were produced on ARM and Linux because Intel didn't have Atom yet so no cheap x86 processor with any horsepower, and Microsoft charged $89 for XP. The Linux netbook was heavily hyped at CES that year and MS took notice. They went to the netbook makers and asked what they needed to do to make sure every netbook came with windows. The Netbook makers said give us windows for $10 and we won't produce the Linux Netbooks. As a result MS priced windows for netbooks at $8 (ask for a windows refund on a netbook, they will offer $8, this has been documented). Intel at the same time produced the atom because they didn't want mass market ARM netbooks hitting the streets and eroding the x86 monopoly. They were able to produce it so quickly because all they did was basically die shrink the original pentium processor (didn't want it to be fast or it could erode regular notebook sales).

      So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook? The answer is the WinTel duopoly got involved and killed it to prevent it from eroding the X86 Windows monopoly. MS and Intel work VERY hard to make sure ARM/Linux Netbooks aren't produced in volume or at prices that will hurt them. Cash incentives, marketing help and all sorts of bad behavior is going on to prevent this market from developing because they KNOW everyone wants a $100 cheap little web tablet/netbook that doesn't weigh much and gets great battery life and that the first one to market will set sales records. Hell the half-assed netbook that has crappy performance set sales records because of price, weight and battery life. The first person to hit good performance, under $200 and with at least 8 hours of battery is going to sell hundreds of millions of them. MS and Intel will do almost anything to make sure that it's not an ARM netbook (MS because the only OS they have that runs on ARM is windowsCE and Mobile, which are both very dated and very crappy compared to Android or Moblin) that's the first one to that goal.

      Mark my words, you won't see mass market ARM netbooks produced unless a large government gets involved in an Anti-Trust action against both MS and Intel at the same time.

      • Maybe linux on arm will take off because android is a linux distribution the masses will accept?

        • Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by clarkn0va ( 807617 ) <apt.get@NosPAm.gmail.com> on Saturday January 30, 2010 @03:39AM (#30960526) Homepage
          The masses must first have the chance to accept. GP is stating that OEMs have so far humoured Intel and MS to the point that most consumers don't really get the choice. Why is it that (last time I checked), the only laptop sold on dell.ca without Windows installed was pink? Why can I buy an Acer Revo with an Atom 330 and Windows, or the much slower Atom 270 with Linux? The OEMs have yet to offer, at least in Canada, equivalent hardware configs to the non-MS crowd, and I tend to believe the GP that this is exactly the way the gorilla wants it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drsmithy ( 35869 )

        h incentives, marketing help and all sorts of bad behavior is going on to prevent this market from developing because they KNOW everyone wants a $100 cheap little web tablet/netbook that doesn't weigh much and gets great battery life [...]

        I don't. Much like tablet computers, I have never been able to figure out what I'd use a netbook for (especially an ARM-based one).

      • Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by westlake ( 615356 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @09:00AM (#30961814)

        At the 2008 CES dozens of ARM "netbooks" running Linux were displayed and a big hit at the show. They were produced on ARM and Linux because Intel didn't have Atom yet so no cheap x86 processor with any horsepower, and Microsoft charged $89 for XP.

        $89 as the wholesale price - the OEM price - for XP?

        Quoted for purchases of 10,000 units? 100,000? A million? To put this in perspective, the brand-name Win 7 netbook has already broken the $300 price point. HP Mini 210-1010NR 10.1-Inch Black Netbook [amazon.com]

        So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook?

        Sales.

        No one in big box retail fought longer and harder to make a go of Linux than WalMart.

        Nothing came of it.

        Walmart.com currently lists 111 laptops, 48 desktops, all Windows, and all but a bare handful running Win 7 Home Premium.

        What I find most surprising - and significant - is the disappearance of the netbook from WalMart's retail shelves.

        Down to a lone Dell Nickelodeon [walmart.com] branded laptop for kids.

        It could just be that WalMart's customers are finding other products more compelling: Kodak Zi8 Aqua Pocket 1080p Video Camera [walmart.com] $180.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *

        > As a result MS priced windows for netbooks at $8..

        The lowest pricing I have ever heard from anyone halfway reliable is $15 but that isn't the whole story. If they ship Windows they also get to ship the bundleware which means they probably actually make a profit.

        > So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook?

        You forgot two other major players in killing the netbook. The OEMs and the retailers. So sit right down and I'll tell 'yall the rest of the story.

        Netbooks were originally imagined as inexpensive, s

    • Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @10:46PM (#30959146)

      I can't wait to slap down $200 to $300 for an ultralight, long-battery life, ARM-based netbook running Linux

      Nintendo DSi once somebody cracks it :)
      DS Linux works on the DS but the low memory and WEP WiFi limits what you can do with it.

  • Android really fit for Netbooks? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by data2 ( 1382587 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:59PM (#30958408)

    Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving. It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.
    But now to the problem. Android is optimised for a touch screen. So, just to give an example, as also shown in the video in the article: When scrolling while browsing, you have to grab the page and "throw" it upwards. Also, there are buttons for zooming in and out.

    So it will be interesting to see how some other minimal linuxes would fare.

    But anyway, for that price, it is probably still worth it.

    • Re:Android really fit for Netbooks? (Score:4, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @08:02AM (#30961476) Journal

      Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving. It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.

      No it isn't. Well, it's impressive that something that small can play H.264 (hell, I'm old enough that I still think it's impressive that it can store and play full-motion videos at any resolution), but it has nothing to do with Android. Pretty much all ARM SoCs come with a dedicated coprocessor for video decoding. It's all offloaded here (which has the nice side effect that you can play back videos without stealing CPU cycles from other tasks), so it will work with any OS that has drivers.

  • Quite an interesting device. I might even want one myself, but only if it gets support for YouTube. I didn't see any mention of how much storage it comes with, but I would hope that it at least comes with a couple of USB ports and an SD card slot -- and isn't hampered by the limitations of built-in storage like the G1. I would also hope that it would support PDF (which might make it a reasonable e-book reader).

    The demo showed the virtual keyboard, which I thought was a bit of a waste, especially since it was not clear that the display was touch-sensitive.

    As for the hope that a company like WalMart would pick this up and sell it for $100 or less, I don't think that will happen. Most of the folks that shop at WalMart are not techies, and in its present form, this is a netbook only a techie would put up with. It's certainly not the iPad-killer, even though I personally would not buy an iPad (or Kindle, or any other platform that allows the vendor to "repossess" content).

  • ... but that doesn't change the fact that most websites suck when viewed on an 800x480 screen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sparr0 ( 451780 )

      Get a few hundred million 800x480 screens into the wild and maybe some web developers will take notice and start developing more accessible pages?

      • Well in a sense that many pages expect to layout at 1024 horizontal pixels. Even with pages that flow properly, 480 pixels high still makes for a lot of scrolling.

        I wouldn't buy one myself but it seems no coincidence that Apple's new device has standard XGA, 1024x768.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dada21 ( 163177 )

      I have 3 Android devices and all of them do a fairly good job of rendering websites for "Mobile" display. In fact, I am currently working on porting my Wordpress sites to a mobile friendly auto-switching theme bases on visits from mobile devices.

      Just because it's laptop shaped doesn't mean it will display websites like a full PC would. It'll display mobile versions, which are still perfect for that resolution.

      I just want Cyanogen to make a mod for this sucker.

    • You got that right.

    • The iPhone has far lower resolution that that and some folks seem to like it for browsing..

      • Zoom (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 )

        The iPhone has far lower resolution that that and some folks seem to like it for browsing..

        It has lower actual resolution, but you are really viewing websites at more like 1024x768 or so scaled down, then zooming in on portions. But even in the zoomed out view, I can read pretty much everything on the Slashdot homepage.

        Without touch controls on the screen zooming is way too annoying on a laptop.

        • Re:Zoom (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Charbax ( 678404 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @09:08AM (#30961858) Homepage
          If you can read the full Slashdot homepage on 480x320 3.5" iphone screen, then surely you could read it too zoomed on a 800x480 7" screen (4x the size and 2.5x the resolution compared to the iphone). Though surely a 8.9" 1024x600 resolution screen would be nicer and would fit in the same form factor and maybe only add $20 to the cost of this device.

  • Milestone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sonicmerlin ( 1505111 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @09:02PM (#30958428)
    I've always felt that $100 was the magic barrier for turning a netbook into an impulse buy, and that if the barrier was ever reached it would truly become a mass market phenomenon. What I want to see now is an attempt to make the screens a little larger and obviously specs a little faster over time, all while maintaining that same price point.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by socz ( 1057222 )
      i got a netbook recently for use in court and i am so impressed with it, I am LOOKING for other reasons to use it. The battery life is OUTSTANDING! It lasted all day all the while playing video and audio. Seriously, it can't get much better than this unless it has a touch screen! (and non stop inet acces). But if android comes along with a $100 price point, I'm in! Just for the "yeah i'll check it out" factor. But my samsung netbook is kickin ass right now.
    • Only if it can do what people want. I would love to have such a cheap option for my kids, but they'll only use it they can play flash games and watch video on the web, and do their homework on it. But you can't run flash on there, and OpenOffice wouldn't run well with 128 MB RAM. Getting closer though!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zerth ( 26112 )

      At $100, I'm going to buy it for the pickers in the warehouse I work for. I've been wanting to switch to a digital pick system, but the devices are either to fragile to drop from 20' up in a lift or too expensive to buy.

      This is probably still too fragile and not quite so cheap that I'd be entirely cavalier about breakage, but I could buy 3 of these instead of a netbook(or 1 Office license!), cover them in spray foam and cannibalize the first break to fix the next.

      If only I could buy them now.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by brusk ( 135896 )

        I've been wanting to switch to a digital pick system, but the devices are either to fragile to drop from 20' up in a lift or too expensive to buy.

        Just use a damned kleenex. They easily survive a 20' fall, and they're much more sanitary than a digital pick system.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jhol13 ( 1087781 )

      Yeah, "I would buy too, if it just had ...".

      It will be missing good quality keyboard, 1280x720 display, 200gig SSD drive, 4gig memory, quad cores, OpenCL, 1000 hour battery life, weight less than 1kg, WiFi and 3G. And will be too expensive - I'd pay only 50.

      Translation: What it will miss is mass appeal.

  • Yes, I see all the limitations of a tablet. But as an internet consumption device, it is an ideal form factor. And at $100, I can replace it every 6 months.

    Finally, something I want to buy.

  • Laptop vs Cellphone Costs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Foo2rama ( 755806 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @09:15PM (#30958498) Homepage Journal
    Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks and that apparently still does not cover the mfg costs of the device hence the locked in contracts to recoup phone costs? Yet this laptop with an arm proc and a larger screen and more moving parts can be sold at 100??? The iPhone costs $179 to mfg.. Pre $138... g1 $140

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by deniable ( 76198 )
      Quick guess, cheaper but bigger and heavier components. Same reason desktops are relatively cheaper than laptops.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by santax ( 1541065 )
      Miniaturization and 'i am so cool now cause i own one of these'-prize inflation come to mind here.
    • Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks and that apparently still does not cover the mfg costs of the device hence the locked in contracts to recoup phone costs? Yet this laptop with an arm proc and a larger screen and more moving parts can be sold at 100??? The iPhone costs $179 to mfg.. Pre $138... g1 $140

      Very good question there. $100 seems almost too cheap, though I agree with other people's comments that this price point is a game change

    • Cell phones are actually quite hard to integrate. Batteries are smaller so you have to suspend a lot. You have to come out of suspend fast and not muck up the phone module as you do it. You have to wake up on an incoming call and start ringtones, etc. Openmoko distros frequently break on simple upgrades in weird ways, I tend to upgrade infrequently for that reason.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dada21 ( 163177 )

      Licensing for 3G and 2G and other cell phone chip hardware is expensive.

      Also, you have to add additional interfaces (SIM card interface, internal antenna, etc) that increase the cost of delivery and design.

      • > Licensing for 3G and 2G and other cell phone chip hardware is expensive.

        Phone chip hardware is expensive, full stop. Microwave rf is not bit-banging. It involves hairy analog circuitry using uncooperative exotic semiconductors.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BZ ( 40346 )

      Given two devices that do the same thing:

      1) The bigger one will cost more
      2) The one with less battery life will cost more
      3) The effects of #1 and #2 compound dramatically.

      As in, small batteries holding lots of charge are expensive. Working well on less charge is expensive. Smaller components are generally more expensive.

      Oh, and custom processors are more expensive than off-the-shelf ones.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BZ ( 40346 )

        > 1) The bigger one will cost more
        > 2) The one with less battery life will cost more

        Those should both have said "less" of course....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by seebs ( 15766 )

      It's harder to make things smaller, in general.

    • Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks

      How do you know those cellphones "cost" 300 bucks? Because your cellphone provider tells you that when selling you a "discounted" cellphone?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      The same reason you're going to be able to buy an iPad for 30% less than an iPhone costs, and you can buy an iPod Touch for less than half the price.

      As soon as you involve a telecom company things suddenly get really expensive.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BikeHelmet ( 1437881 )

      $179?

      Much of that R&D, I bet?

  • That is one fugly netbook with very limited memory. I might buy one as a play computer for my two year old. Otherwise - its a fail.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dannycim ( 442761 )

      It's running Android, not windows, so it's got plenty of memory.

      • Not to mention it's got 16 times as much memory as a Cray-1 bleeding supercomputer. I don't know which is sadder, the fact that it's surprising that something so much more powerful than a supercomputer needs a video demonstration to prove it can successfully view a webpage, or the fact that some people can't think of anything to do with a supercomputer beyond giving it to a 2 year-old.
        • So what? I've got a 64MB Toshiba Portege that runs Win98 and DSL. What is it useful for? I gave the thing to my 6 year old so that she can run TuxPaint.

          Yes its cheap. No it doesn't do anything much useful.

          At best its a thin client for Google's online software. Its not a supercomputer because it doesn't do anything that a supercomputer would do.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by randallman ( 605329 )

      I think Windows Vista/7 has really warped peoples notion of useful memory size. There are many uses for a device like this that don't require gigabytes of RAM. The applications that run on a Nokia N800/N810 with 128Mb of RAM are a testament to that. I would certainly have a use for a sub-notebook sized device with the power and power consumption of my N800.

  • Will it bring another wave of newbies? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lpaul55 ( 137990 ) * on Friday January 29, 2010 @11:18PM (#30959316) Homepage Journal

    My prediction: when the $100 barrier is broken and laptops are in the supermarkets, the impact of this on the internet will be comparable to that of AOL.

    • [sarcasm]

      You mean we'll use them for coasters like we did with AOL's disks and CDs?

      Or do you mean it will bankrupt the company which produces them into oblivion after the bubble bursts?

      [/sarcasm]

  • Not a $100 laptop (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @11:31PM (#30959388) Homepage Journal

    TFA uses a simplistic economic fallacy to argue that the price will be around $100:

    The price has not yet been announced officially... But you can understand that if Hivision was able to sell those types of laptops for $98 to distributors more than a year ago (when I filmed my popular video from IFA 2008), then surely the mass manufacturing price has not gone up since then. My expectation is that if a giant consumer electronics reseller such as Walmart or Best Buy approaches Hivision today to order huge quantities of this laptop, it could be sold below $100 to end users.

    He's assuming that any given tech drops in price by a huge percentage every year. If that were true, IBM would still be making 8088-based PCs and selling them for a few bucks. (Take the $2K 1981 price and divide by 2 about 15 times.) Instead, you can't buy a new 8088-based system for any price — it's not worth Intel's while to even manufacture the chip, never mind somebody else to build a system around it.

    There's always a certain minimum cost to any manufacturing process. Scaling up reduces costs, and so does Moore's law, but only to a point. You'll always have to pay for materials, factory space, workers, shipping, marketing, etc. Some of these things are cheaper outside the U.S., but again, only to a point.

    I'm not sure what the minimum cost for manufacturing a computer is, but I very much doubt that it's much below $100. When manufacturers reach that minimum, they can't keep cutting prices, no matter how much the electronics improve, bang-for-buck-wise. So instead, they find a good price point, and provide the best product they know how to for that price. The result: low end products don't get cheaper, they get better.

    I couldn't begin to guess how much these new ARM laptops will sell for. It will have to be a lot less than the competing Atom-based systems, or else no one will buy them. But I doubt if the retail price will ever go below $200, not if they're sold by anybody who's in it for the money.

    Of course, even a $200 laptop would be damned popular. And a couple years after they come out, you'll be able to buy used ones on eBay for a pittance.

    • Re:Not a $100 laptop (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Charbax ( 678404 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @09:34AM (#30962038) Homepage
      Surely if Google designs a perfect one and launches manufacturing of 10 million units, they can make them at $60 a piece and sell them on google.com/laptop for less than $100 also subsidized further by Google's online ads. The biggest cost of the laptop is the screen, using Pixel Qi [armdevices.net] the battery life can be upwards more than 20 hours even with a small cheap Laptop battery.

  • where can i buy it? (Score:3, Informative)

    by farble1670 ( 803356 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @11:34PM (#30959398)

    TFA is only speculating at the price. really, let's see this article when there's a link where this device can be purchased.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.

Close