One interesting thing about a number of the proposed "EEE-killers" (which are all looking at being about as successful as the endless succession of "iPod-killers") is the complete lack of understanding that's demonstrated by the manufacturers about what made the EEE successful. It was successful because it's about the size and weight of a hardcover book, is all solid-state, and costs < $400. Almost every single "EEE-killer" (including Asus' own successors to the EEE 701) have been created under the assumption that if the EEE is selling well then a machine with a larger screen, larger keyboard, hard drive instead of SSD, and more memory (and more weight, more size, and much more cost) will sell even better. The result has been a succession of crappy generic low-end laptops that are no different to any other crappy low-end laptop. The only company that seems to have even vaguely "got it" is MSI with the MSI Wind, assuming the actual machine lives up to the pre-release rumours. Asus themselves were taken completely by surprise by the 701's success (they sold out almost immediately everywhere they were released and Asus barely kept up with demand), and have shown, by the not-very-cheap crappy low-end laptop successor models to the 701, that they still haven't quite got it either.

Very interesting perspective on the changing PC industry... AMD will continue to compete and potentially dominate.

"The current issue of BusinessWeek has an expansive article of the history of OLPC and why it has, to date, been a flop. Among the reasons: no preparation for the educational systems expected to use it, uncertain pedagogical theories, poor business management, competition from Microsoft/Intel, and no input from education professionals in designing the software. As BusinessWeek quotes one educational expert, 'The hackers took over,' and the applications are too complex for children to use. To date, 370,000 laptops have been shipped — a far cry from the original 150 million planned to be shipped by end of 2008."