[trelane]

> Netbooks didn’t need Microsoft’s help in dying.

Amazing how many of Microsoft's competitors don't need the help, yet receive it.

> Nobody bought more than one of them, the experience was that bad.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/netbook-sales-exploded-i...

"The market for small and cheap laptops -- netbooks -- boomed in 2008, with almost 15 million of the things sold globally."

On the contrary, they were incredibly popular.

[tmp10423288442]

Yes, they seemed like a good idea - they were really cheap, and had decent battery life for the time - but the compromises were such that you really wouldn’t want to buy another netbook if you could. After the first few releases, the MacBook Air became what the non-cheapskate buyers of netbooks wanted.

[trelane]

> compromises were such that you really wouldn’t want to buy another netbook if you could.

This is directly contradicted by the existence of Netbook fans.

[internet2000]

How many of those are there? How many compared to the 15 million (mostly) first-and-only-time buyers?

Netbooks are almost unique in tech history in how flash-in-the-pan they were. Crypto somehow had more staying power.

[trelane]

The parent was speaking in absolutes, that beyond just didn't work for anybody. A handful of examples is more than sufficient to disprove it.

On the other hand, you're arguing that the majority didn't buy it again. I've not seen any proof one way or the other. Do you have some?

[tmp10423288442]

I am a Sith - I prefer to speak in absolutes. Hedging is useless - either say what you mean outright, or quantify it if you can’t say it absolutely.