Heads up Apple, the Intel Netbook is unstoppable
Friday night at a Best Buy in Southern California--maybe not the hippest place to be, but some interesting dynamics were at work.
HP 'Mini' promo: more than a few of the newer Netbooks are not low quality
(Credit: Hewlett-Packard)A typical flow of people passed through the laptop section in the 20 minutes I was there. Toward the end, all of the remaining customers (a few men and women, each) were marveling at all the cute, inexpensive laptops. Cute, inexpensive laptops to them, Netbooks to us in the media who like cut-and-dried categories.
I was mildly shocked to see these people ignore the 50 or so standard laptops behind them and focus solely on Netbooks. So, I began querying the sales guy and one of the customers. It came down to essentially two things: price and selection (surprise, surprise). Best Buy now has a large selection of Netbooks--10 or so on display. A far cry from the Best Buy display of six months ago: a single, tiny, neglected Asus Eee PC pushed into a corner.
And I visited a second Best Buy where a sales guy gushed about Netbooks. "They're extremely popular," he said, adding that "almost all of my customers" just want to do e-mail and surf the Web.
That is circuitous way to get to my point. The Intel Netbook is not going away and is just getting more popular as this marketing research report indicates. Apple's Tim Cook dissed Netbooks back in April for what seemed like acceptable reasons: cheap, "junky hardware" (Cook's words) equates to downmarket, shoddy products. But that Apple reasoning needs an update--the fall 2009 version: a lot of the newer Netbooks coming out now are not shoddy or cheap feeling. (And I am hereby updating my previous pessimistic take on Netbooks too per this post.)
People like cute, light, and cheap--especially in a laptop. This sentiment won't be overcome, as Intel believes, by the emerging ultrathin laptop category, which ranges from about $500 to $1,000 (formerly called CULV or consumer ultra-low-voltage). Certainly not this year. Ultrathins are not different enough in appearance from a standard laptop and not cheap enough. (And recent reports indicate that the ultrathin category is not taking off as expected.)
Intel will never admit in a thousand years that it has created, in the Netbook, a Frankenstein monster of sorts. Intel will, of course, take credit (which it should) for the creation of a new category of computing devices, but my sense is that the company is not head over heels about the Netbook business model--and this is also a reason for Apple's very conscious decision not to make a Netbook. And, as many people are predicting, its reason for pursuing a more upscale tablet-like touch device.
Best Buy has a large Netbook selection
(Credit: Best Buy)Intel's sales chief, Sean Maloney, has intimated in the past that Netbooks are not huge money makers. Speaking about the expected emergence of the ultrathin laptop category back in May he said that this is "an opportunity for upsell. We don't need to give this stuff away. The industry doesn't need to give this stuff away. We can reach new price points and we can also get paid for it."
But there is just too much marketing momentum now behind Netbooks at large PC makers--and in retail. Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Toshiba, Sony, and Acer all are pushing Netbooks. And in Japan, easily one the largest PC markets in the world, the Netbook is a hit--despite initial resistance from Japanese PC makers--for all of the same reasons cited above: small, light, inexpensive--and add fashionable. Major Japanese tech Web sites (such as ASCII) and large retailers (like Yodobashi Camera) have a significant Netbook focus now because that's what readers and consumers are demanding.
And I just don't think performance is that much of an issue for many consumers. Some, of course, will return a Netbook because their expectations were too high (I heard this from a sales person at Frys Electronics), but a lot of people across all consumer segments (kids, students, business people) will continue to buy these things by the boatload (unless Intel intentionally sabotages the category--which I hope Intel is savvy enough not to do.)
Apple's products and marketing are good but not infallible. And the lack of a Netbook may come back to bite Apple at some point. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next month. But maybe next year. One of the Best Buy customers eying a Netbook made a comment that was a powerful counterpoint to all the Apple Mac-PC ads. To paraphrase: "You have to pay an arm and a leg for Apple (pointing to the Apple corner), I'm trying to make a practical business decision here."
Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. Follow Brooke on Twitter @mbrookec. 
Oh, give me a break. You can get a fully featured PC laptop with a full sized keyboard, more hard drive space and a built-in optical drive for the same price as some of these netbooks, without gaining much more weight.
I really don't want to take my fully featured 17" laptop on my vacation. I just need a light weight baby so i could communicate with outside world. :P
they have their own choices and I've mine. Deal with it!
Don't want a contract? An iPod Touch outclasses the netbooks too.
And it fits in your pocket.
Anyway, time will tell and it is not as if these industry pundits have a very good track record in predicting the success of these things. :-)
The Apple laptops are being bought down at the Apple Store, not at Best Buy. At the Apple Store, computer buyers are buying... not Dell, not HP, not Lenovo... but Apple MacBooks and occasionally PowerMacs.
This leaves the true target of the whole netbook 'threat': Dell, HP, and Lenovo full-sized laptops (and desktops). None of them have direct retail stores, so they rely on the likes of Best Buy for retail purchases... and those purchases seem to go towards the netbooks, which mean thinner margins and less profit.
QED (and backed by revenue and corp. financials) Apple has far less to worry about than anyone else.
Even Intel has more to worry about with this dynamic (from folks buying Atoms instead of Core Duos).
'course, it wouldn't be as sexy and eye-grabbing if they said "Heads up Dell...", would it?
Both my iPhone and Touch lack USB ports. My netbook has three. I can't hook my flatbed scanner I take with me to the Apple devices but the netbook handles it with ease.
@Random_Walk:
"The Apple laptops are being bought down at the Apple Store, not at Best Buy. At the Apple Store, computer buyers are buying... not Dell, not HP, not Lenovo... but Apple MacBooks and occasionally PowerMacs."
Okay.... what does location of the sales outlet have to do with this? Are you saying that Best Buy, Fry's, etc, that also have Apple products aren't selling them? OR... are you saying that when consumers are offered *all* the products... like Fry's we'll say, that when offered HP, Dell, Acer, Toshiba, and Apple products all side by side, that people are buying the netbooks over the Apple products because they aren't in an Apple store? Come off it- that just doesn't make any sense no matter how you phrase it. You also go on to say that Apple products are selling at Apple stores- well that falls into the DUH category. I expect not many Dell laptops sell in the Apple store either.
The only thing you proved was that in an open market where consumers could choose anything they wanted, they didn't choose Apple products. And that when consumers were forced to only look at Apple products in an Apple Store with Apple employees that... surprise surprise, consumers only bought Apple products.
Then you go on to point out that all these other companies rely on retailers to sell their products... well again, DUH. Apple does too. And if we use your example of Apple saving all that money by selling Apple products at Apple stores, that would suggest that Apple could produce a netbook and sell it for *LESS* than those competing brands in a retail store. See, right there alone your entire point gets debunked.
Don't you think that if these companies like Dell, HP, and others couldn't make money at this by selling in retail stores that they would stop by now instead of all of them jumping on this very lucrative emergeing market?
It's the same thing that pushed Apple into the niche market in the early 90's. PC's suddenly got a lto cheaper and unless Apple does something to keep up, they'll find themselves priced out of the market... again. Now that may be their intent to keep the elitist and luxury image. But that's not where the money is.
QED indeed. You may want to go back and refresh your notiosn on market demand, consumer pricing, and how much money those same consumers spend overall. Recall that these machines are not being bought as a desktop or laptop replacement- that's something even you seem to be missing the point on. They buy these as additional or supplemental devices. It's a new market.
It's dinosaur thinking like yours that will leave you behind.
Honest question, to which I've always wanted to know the answer - Can you download and save files on an iPhone? I'm not considering one necessarily, because I'm leaving AT&T as soon as my contract is up (they're horrible!) but it'd make an interesting argument if you could save files like you can on a Netbook. I'd go so far as to say tat the Pal Pre and Pixie are more like Netbooks than the iPhone since you can run multiple apps at once. (i.e. On my Mac right now, I have Firefox, iTunes and Preview open at once. That's impossible on an iPhone.)
Also, the iPod Touch isn't a good comparison to a Netbook, really: Lots of Netbooks allow you to insert a 3G card and get on the Internet anywhere. For that, you'd have to have an iPhone instead of an iPod Touch.
I already gave up on you :) Keep it up and people will follow you :P
@Mal + Prota:
No matter how great mobile phones are, they won't beat netbooks. And it's my point of view!
The majority of Apple's retail sales (esp. for laptops) happen at Apple's own retail stores, and Apple's own financials show that they're still selling desktops and notebooks in retail very nicely, in spite of a recession.
Brooke kept concentrating on places like Best Buy, and noted that the netbooks were also affecting sales of std. Dell, HP, etc. laptops - where the majority of those OEMs' retail sales happen.
Notice that Brooke utterly fails to show/prove/point-to any slackening in Apple's retail notebook/desktop sales, nor do they even bother mentioning Apple's stores.
QED: The "threat" the netbooks posit for retail sales is greater towards Dell and HP computers than Apple, who is apparently selling quite nicely in the Apple Stores (where you would obviously not find netbooks).
You're not going to be able to dissemble your way out of that, no matter how many words you throw at it... and neither is Brooke, who completely managed to ignore this rather huge factor.
Now if Brooke could have shown any slackening in Apple's computer sales growth (he didn't, and can't at this time), his headline would have been accurate. As it is, it is not.
Can you download Porn on your iPhone?
Can you install Word on your iPhone?
Can you do Video chat on your iPhone?
Can you install iTunes on an iPhone. Let's say you have load of mp3s on a CD and you want to put it on your iPhone. You WILL need a computer to do it.
a netbook with a 3G connection can do everything an iPhone can do, but an iPhone can't do everything a netbook can do.
300 x 100 > 3000 x 1.
A rate is meaningless without a multiplier.
After showing the multiplier, it needs to finish up by showing at least how many netbook makers have sold and thus profited handsomely over how many Apple has sold and is losing money.
Looking back at the last quarterly calls, Apple machines continue to show a growth although the rate is less than a year ago. Other PC makers are experiencing no growth. So if Apple sells less but continue to be profitable with moderate growth rate even in this economy while other PC makers are selling less even with the cheaper units, the multiplier scenario falls apart.
We will see how it goes last quarter and then this coming holiday quarter. I expect continuing decline in all standard laptop and desktop sales and continuing netbook sales. Kids are returning to school and they need a machine. Many are first-time buyers and will go for price first.
Good point. Except for the phrase "it wouldn't be good journalism." What you probably meant was, "it wouldn't be bad journalism."
Bad journalism is written by bad journalist who must always drag Apple into into computer discussions. Apple computers are all hype and no substance, and journalists should get a clue about that.
The Mac OS has been around for 25 years now and have never never had more than 25% of overall computer market share. That should be a clue to journalist. Without the Apple hype, Macs would have been history long ago. Apple is primarily a phone maker and music distribution company, and computers are an increasing small portion of their sales.
People don't want Macs, except for a fringe group. That is a well-proven fact. It is not because they are over-priced (they are), but because they offer so little value for money.
For $3,000 you'd be getting the biggest maxxed-out Macbook Pro you could lay your hands on - and I suspect you would be getting a PC laptop with similar high-end specs for that kind of money.
Thanks for making my point so well.
You have good points, but most of them aren't true, just myths. Mac OS has been around for 25 years and has less than 25% of overall market share, sure, but it has a lot less market penetration than Windows and Linux. While Windows & Linux can be installed on almost any computer with hardware, you can only get Mac OS through Apple's own hardware. You have to look at it from a hardware point of view, which, Apple does have quite a large hunk of the market compared to the many other PC dealers (looking at them not as a unified company but individually).
Also, Apple is not primarily music distribution company or phone producer, the majority of the sales that come from the iTunes store go back into supporting the store and the iPhone (along with the iPod) make up only half of Apple's revenue stream. The rest comes from computer hardware sales. While Apple's hardware might be highly priced, it isn't slowing their growth in the market. Assuming it was, I'm sure Apple (or any other wise company) would sever that part of their business, they've done it before.
$1,000 bucks for a 13 inch laptop? No wonder Apple isn't even a player for businesses. Let's see buy a Dell that has double everything for that price or an Apple. I'm glad Apple is happy with their extremely small piece of the pie.
You're missing the rest of the equation: ROI and TCO. That Dell usually has to be replaced every 2-3 years (if you're lucky, otherwise they start falling apart at 18 months). The Macs usually last (in consumer hands) twice as long.
We can then factor in help desk time and expenses for patching, virus/malware cleaning, upgrades, and general repairs due to the cheap construction that the Dells and HP's comprise. Microsoft, not being a charity, usually charges more for licensing overall (esp. for MS Office). Now that Snow Leopard has full compatibility with Exchange, and a suite of perfectly compatible office apps (without the licensing costs), suddenly licensing costs are a much bigger factor.
Taken all together, especially if one can reduce FTE costs on the upkeep side, the Macs actually come out cheaper.
There's more to business than the initial sticker price, yanno?
No statistics on that, I've looked. Until you can provide the mean time between failure for these computers, please stop making things up. BTW, when they used to post those statistics years ago, the lifespan of computer components was typically 20 years.
I read this so often, I have to wonder if people really understand what constitutes a hardware vendor. That Apple processor and video card is really awesome. And that Apple RAM is the best ever.
Oh wait.
Apple is an OEM with their own OS.
Why ever pay 500 to 1000 for a Windows laptop when OSX can be put on a 250 laptop and get most of the same features.
I'm just not convinced that a "NetMac" is the right way to go - it's not OS X is "slow" (it runs just fine in an iPhone for example) but if the system doesn't have the horse power for Mac's signature apps, well it would be the "full Mac experience". I feel the same way about Windows 7 on these systems, OK so Microsoft have made it "fit" (how well I'm not sure) but there is a lot more to an OS than just running that, it's hardly useful without applications.
Now I know some will only want email and browsing, and for them a NetBook makes great sense (in fact the choice between Windows/Mac OS or Linux seems totally academic - if that's all you're going to run what does it matter?!) But most people will want to run some kind of application, at some point. One things for sure on these boxes; it won't be a game.
I don't care a whit about Apples signature software since I don't use it on my Mac or my Windoze machines. The exception is the bloated iTunes. If a netbook forced them to put iTunes on a diet, great.
Snow Leopard gives Apple the touch screen support it needed to do a tablet netbook. This is a big market they are overlooking just now.
I UNDERSTAND THE NETBOOK CRAZE. 75% OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN A COMPUTER DON'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT IT HAS TO OFFER OR WANT TO LEARN HOW TO USE IT FOR MORE THAN EMAIL & WEB SURFING. IT HARD TO LEARN SOMETHING WHEN THEY'VE GOT A CELL PHONE DUCK TAPED TO THEIR EAR. :)
It came with everything I needed, the software was great, managing Photos and Music, Editing Movies, creating DVD's. And it ran Windows! And the games never crashed. It was a better Windows machine than my Windows machine.
The biggest advantage to the Mac was the extra time that it found for me. I spend all my computer time using my Mac, and no time trying to keep it running, It's like the energizer bunny, it keeps going, and going, and going...
Do not take the advice of ignorant people such as this. Windows computers do not do more for less, they do less for less for more of the time. Net-Books are nothing more than smaller and crappier versions of the plastic sheathed, sticker covered crap the PC folks have been peddling for years.
The Apple Tax is a myth, perpetuated by jealous and nerdy Windows fanboys that cant see past their own ignorance.
Apple is the best consumer electronics company in the world, and their products truly are the best. That's why they keeps winning all the laptop reviews, that is why the Apple Store is always busy, and that is why the fanboys have concocted the Apple Tax.
you're right! Microsoft should take all responsibilities because of video drivers (3rd party software). LOL!! dirvers messup, it's MS!! apps run wild, it's MS!!! That's all "Apple bunnies" are all about!! They need to blaim on somebody. For your sake, find out why your computer crash first!!!
Nothing like waving the "I've never used a Mac before" flag in all caps. I love how people develop passionate opinions about things they know nothing about.
I have been reading loads of negative fanboy posts against Apple and feel that I must tell my story. I'm a "switcher" and couldn't be happier. I used to think that no company could ever catch up to Microsoft in Operating Systems. Apple did just that, and even surpassed them in many, many ways.
The computers are futuristically advanced, with durable (almost rugged) aluminum construction. The magnetic power cord has saved my laptop from being dragged to an early death more than once. The slot load drives eliminate protruding parts that break easily. Backlit keyboard and large trackpad are features very appreciated.
Time Machine is the first backup software that I actually trust, and Spaces is the best virtual desktop implementation i've ever used. Windows 7 doesn't have either of these features and doesn't have the iLife applications to do the things most people want to do. Windows 7 has upgraded Paint and Word Pad applications - WOW!. Apple seams to be much more in touch with what a user needs and Windows 7 is kinda childish in comparison.
I think that if you have a MacBook Pro laptop, a Windows net-book is a redundant purchase. On the other hand a PC net-book could never be your only computer. That pretty much says it all.
You lost all credibility when you said "(more software available)" when referencing "PC's".
Everyone on planet earth (except you, that is) knows that all Macs run all Windows software PLUS all Mac software, so you might want to reconsider before posting such silly little comments.
windows/lunux users have choices to select what they want. We pick the best software to suit our needs. Do you know why many MCSE/Linux/Novell/Cisco guys/girls are out there? They're running the world and they also know that they wouldn't be fooled by Apple's shinny machines and impressive UI (user interface)
Remember Palm Pre? Apple blocks Plam Pre out of iTunes. On another hand, Apple's sneaking to get it's OXS compatible with Exchange and let Apple users install Win7 (BootCamp). WOW!! See the dirty tricks? Do you think Apple will let Win/Linux users to install OSX on Win7/Linux boxes?
My four year old MacBook has outlasted several of its cheap PC counterparts in my house. (I should note, I am using a near ten year old Ruby iMac as a file and print server, as well.) While you may be able to pick up a cheap PC for a fraction of a Mac's price, the quality of the piece of equipment is well worth the price.
I can understand the need for Netbooks, and for what my ten year old does on the computer, it would be worth the price to keep her off of my computer. Heck, I would actually like one for their ease of 'luggability'. But, it still wouldn't replace my MacBook or desktop computer.
Making this story about how Apple screwed up entering the Netbook market was just a ploy to get readers. If Apple decides to enter the fray, they are going to do it with a functional, higher quality machine that still makes sense for their bottom line.
The Windows fanboys are always talking about how cheaply you can get a Windows PC. And the Netbook market is giving them a new battle cry. But, that's like comparing the $1 burger at McDonald's with the $8.99 one at Applebee's. It just doesn't make sense.
So, whether you want a Mac or a good Windows machine, you have to pay a price. That price is around $1200. A Netbook can't replace a good laptop.
For those using cheap PCs to run OS X, I applaud you. I think it is a good idea and I would like to see an Apple branded machine with that lower price point, but to say the Windows PC can do more is just not a true statement. If you are going to the trouble of porting OS X to the PC why wouldn't you use Boot Camp or other emulation software to do the converse and get the same results using better hardware?
How many Apple fanboys buy new Apple iPods the moment a new model is out? Laptops?
Gaming fans are always updating their hardware.
Some people buy new shoes because they see them in the store window, not because they need them.'
What does this mean? Different markets for different people. Here's an example:
I have a MacBookPro I bought. I love it. It does what I need it to do on the Mac platform. I also have a Powerbook from 1998. But then I also have a 10 year old Windows laptop and bought a new one just this year. I have all of them. Why? They all serve different purposes. The Powerbook runs a coupld of apps that the new OS cannot. The old Windows laptop runs another similar app that needs a phyiscal serial port and it doesn't work under emulation with a USB / serial adapter. It needs the real thing. They all have their purposes.
Of course the only purpose my Sun or SGI machines have are to simply exist and look cool, but hey, that's a purpose, right? :)
My advice would have to be: if you're buying a NetBook make sure you look at it as "a disposable PC", if that's not what you want then a PC Laptop (or even a MacBook) might be a wiser choice. Before you think the MacBook Pro is a crazy choice for someone who's cost conscious consider:
1) Macs traditionally do have longer lives than PCs, there is no guarantee that will happen again - but it has always been true in the past.
2) A MacBook Pro can take 8GB of RAM (and it's usually a shortage of RAM that makes older systems so slow).
3) You actually do get a lot of potentially useful software with a Mac, factor this in - if you're going to have to buy something on the PC to do the same job, well that's a saving isn't it?
Now sure, for a lot of buyers, a PC is still going to be a good choice (let's not worry about the gamers, they can seriously consider a NetBook in the first place) if you know you're going to have to run this or that Windows app, and that's the reason you're buying a system then a Mac makes no sense (after all a Mac running Windows is to all intents and purposes a PC). But Macs do make sense for a lot of people, more than actually realise it.
'2) A MacBook Pro can take 8GB of RAM (and it's usually a shortage of RAM that makes older systems so slow)."
True, however you need to only use Apple Certified memory or you invalidate your warranty if Apple finds out about it.. And go ahead and price out that 8G memory upgrade... your'e talking about nearly doubling the cost of the laptop. Even Leo Laporte was bemoaning this excessive cost of memory for Apple... and he's one of the biggest Apple proponents out there.
"3) You actually do get a lot of potentially useful software with a Mac, factor this in - if you're going to have to buy something on the PC to do the same job, well that's a saving isn't it?"
Also true... but then this is true of a PC and of open source software as well. I have my MacBookPro with Snow Leopard on it. The first thing I did was go out and start downloading software to replace what was included because it's simply too limited and doesn't meet my needs. So... that included value is worthless to me. Does that mean I should devalue the price of the laptop accordingly? :)
This is simply not true.
your comment about Apple Certified Ram" is total BS.
I'm not saying you can't do it- obviously you can, but the fact remains that Apple does use it as a reason to reject service. Please contact Apple directly for more information. I can only go with what they have told me and my company in writing.
Let's take a different approach. Are you familiar with Apple's own forums: http://discussions.apple.com/index.jspa ?
Then you will know that those forums are strictly moderated -questions about or discussion of Apple business policy will be removed very quickly, as will any suggestion of solutions that will potentially void a users warranty.
Rightly so. It's a user to user forum for troubleshooting, nothing more.
In my 10 years as a member there, I have seen hundreds of answers to folks asking about RAM upgrades. They are invariably directed to the usual third party sellers such as Crucial, OWC and Kingston amongst others. Those posts are not removed.
It should be noted that I am a regular contributor there and a forum leader in the Pro Video section of Apple Discussions, not just someone who browses the iPod section every six months. So I do know what I am talking about.
I wasn't suggesting you stick 8GB in TODAY! I was suggesting that as the MacBook get older (it happens to all of us) it will have the option to take more RAM, a lot more in fact. As the shortage of RAM is usually a killer for older computers (Macs or PCs) the high ceiling on RAM size is actually worth quite a bit. At least in terms of longevity. RAM prices always fall over the longterm - so again just because the cost is scary today, it'll be much less scary when you actually need to do it (and is likely to be a good investment rather than junk your machine. We're also talking in the future, probably after the warrantee is a distant memory!
As for software, well as always YMMV - I like getting Xcode (and friends) and I use iPhoto (here my needs are modest). But I'm also talking about overlooked stuff like "Disk Utilities" (which let's face it is pretty damn useful - for those reading through Windows, it can copy disks, burn disks, make " disk images", sure you can get software that does this on the PC, but every Mac has this). Sure if you're a pro photographer you'll probably find iPhoto a bit limiting and a pro musician will probably want to upgrade from Garageband. But for the vast majority of buyers these applications are great (many users will be better off with these choices).
Welllll... .No, not really. "Featured" perhaps, but not great features. A decent laptop (with a good video card and enough RAM and a good CPU) still costs about $1200+. Been that way for a decade really.
The real reason Netbooks are popular (and why I bought one even though I have a $2000 laptop) is not so much their size (although that's part of it),.. it's their price.... then you look at their specs... then at their size and say, "cool, I want one."
The big thing in people's mind is the $350 threshold. More than that, they can't justify it because yes... you CAN get a laptop for about $450 or a bit more with "ok" features.
You can get a very good little netbook for under $300 ($250 actually) with 1 gig of ram, web cam, 160 gig HD, windows XP (which suits netbooks well), wireless modem, 3 USB ports, and a decent sound card. About the size and weight of a medium sized paper back book.
THAT is why netbooks are popular. They will not replace a real laptop. They are not meant to. When their price starts to climb to $500, $600 dollars, people shy away and start looking at laptops.
Welllll... .No, not really. "Featured" perhaps, but not great features. A decent laptop (with a good video card and enough RAM and a good CPU) still costs about $1200+. Been that way for a decade really.
The real reason Netbooks are popular (and why I bought one even though I have a $2000 laptop) is not so much their size (although that's part of it),.. it's their price.... then you look at their specs... then at their size and say, "cool, I want one."
The big thing in people's mind is the $350 threshold. More than that, they can't justify it because yes... you CAN get a laptop for about $450 or a bit more with "ok" features.
You can get a very good little netbook for under $300 ($250 actually) with 1 gig of ram, web cam, 160 gig HD, windows XP (which suits netbooks well), wireless modem, 3 USB ports, and a decent sound card. About the size and weight of a medium sized paper back book. "
I guess you haven't looked at laptops lately. I just bought my daughter a new Toshiba 15" laptop from Best buy. Core 2 Duo 2.33 Ghz, 320 GB drive, 2 GB RAM. DVD burner. Discrete graphics. $379 (regular price was $399 but they had a $20 off sale).
Explain again why I should spend $250-$300 for a system with 8" screen, Atom processor, 1 GB RAM, and no optical drive?
Now, there is an argument that some people want a computer with a netbook's form factor and I don't have any problem with that. The problem is that most people seem to buy them because they're cheap, but a bit of shopping negates that advantage.
Most buy them for battery life. (9-12 hours vs. 2-3 hours)
1- A netbook is about as fast as a 3-year old mainstream laptop
2- Hardware requirements for real-world apps have not significantly changed in 6 years never mind 6
3- The Pareto rule; 80% of the cost of a product is due to 20% of the features. Netbooks are adequate computers for 80% of the market and, as Adam Osbourne used to say; "Adequacy is sufficient."
People buy netbooks as their second or third PCs because once they know what they *need* they can appreciate that they don't really *need* much more.
As end users become more computer-literate and experienced they realize what features are worth paying for and what aren't.
Realistically, Apple can't afford to put OS X on a netbook; once the faithful realize netbooks *aren't* junk they may decide that getting a new OS X netbook a year is way cheaper than getting a macbook every three years and paying for the yearly $129 OS upgrades.
Netbooks *are* a Frankenstein monster.
But we have yet to see all the havoc this tech can wreck.
This is seriously disruptive tech and the fun is just beginning.
(Just look at the eeeBox and eeeKeyboard PC for starters...)
So many commenters on cnet seem to be completely dismissive of netbooks based on specs alone. I think if more people tried using one, they would realize just how amazing netbooks are: Much more comfortable to use and functional than even the fanciest of smartphones while considerably more convenient and (dare I say) attractive than regular laptops.
As for the Apple argument, they have the hand-held device completely in their control with the ipod and iphone. So, to some extent, they don't need to compete against netbooks immediately. However, I think they'll eventually be forced into the netbook game (whether it's a tablet or something else). The question is will the inevitable $300-400 added to Apple's pricing be competitive.
When this finally dies I'll get a Macbook Air. Costs more than a netbook. And will last far longer.
On the one hand, netbooks may be undermining the PC economy of Intel, Acer, HP, and all of the other eeePC-chasers. You can't make much on a $300 machine, especially one that diminishes sales of a larger machine, and especially is you expect to have a 40% profit margin.
On the other hand, Apple doesn't make netbooks. Neither do IBM, GE, Google, and a host of other large companies. Apple's sales and profits are rising. Think that is true of HP's PC subdivision? Dell? Acer? The netbook is undermining them all.
Furthermore, one could argue that the iPhone is Apple's response to the netbook. In discussion forums, when someone asks about which netbook is best for mobile users, there are always responses that urge the user to use an iPhone as it is more portable, more connected, easier to use, and cheaper (excluding the monthly connection charges) than a netbook --- and you get a phone. But the point here is that Apple is quite competitive when smart phones are combined with netbook sales.
Yes, my iPhone fits into the pocket of a dress shirt. A netbook doesn't even fit into the pocket of a size XXL BDU. If you are going to carry a crippled and chintzy netbook, you might as well carry a full featured and robust MacBook. Not mention with a MacBook that you are using the much superior OSX over Windows.
Brook's headline today is his usual click bait.
Netbooks aren't bad, but people will pay for quality. The number of posts here from users of older Apple products that are still being used proves that. If you want further proof, go on ebay or some other site and check the actual going price for used Apple products. You might be surprised that the higher resale value for used Apple computers is also quite high.
Bottom line: Apple has missed anything.
Now Apple has learned this quite well in other areas. Whereas their computers are seen largely as overpirces luxury items (that's the public perception folks, true or not, deal with it), they saw money to be made in downloading music and came up with the iTunes store. That's been a great success. They pushed into the portable music player market with success. Now they are in the cell phone business with also popular results.
That's growth. That's profit.
Ignoring a consumer demand is only cutting themselves off from that money to be made. It could be a concious decision and well calculated, or just an oversight on Apple's part. They can and do have low power PC's (Mini, anyone?) that could be readily adapted to a netbokk form factor.
chintzy and it will run the much superior OSX.
Now that does often lead Apple to higher prices - but how often have you bought something that cost a little extra (or even quite a lot) and thought later: "actually this is good, it was worth the extra"? Apple do well because they get a lot of repeat business. People who buy Macs really do enjoy the product - it's build quality, it's design, it's customer support, it's reliability. When you take a product and cut every corner, then fill the system up with trialware and junk - well the enduser experience isn't the best. That's why people will pay extra for a "good" PC (forget Apple for a moment) most of the PC makers have systems like this, and if you bought on $'s for specs alone, you'd never buy one. But seriously, a Dell Precision compared with a Dell Dimension feels like it comes from a totally different company (all the way through, down to customer support). Quality costs, PC or Mac (you just can't buy a trashy Mac - Apple don't make them).
@Perry_Clease
So far Snow Leopard hasn't proven to be anything better than 7. However I actually use Snow Leopard and Vista having let my 7 beta lisence lapse as I refuse to pay for the fix to Vista.
Also when traveling on a plane, that smaller screen makes it a lot easier to open up on the tray table than normal laptop, and doesn't require you to hold in your hand the entire flight ike a Touch or iPhone (I have both).
IT would appear that a vast number of consumers and OEM's would disagree with you, making this a multi-billion dollar industry of profit.
A netbook doesn't do what you want it to do. That's fine for you. For me, my nice shiny MacBookPro doesn't fit on a tray table on a flight, and it is too heavy to hold while using it to diagnose or trouvleshoot Cisco switches in a cable room. The netbook can do all of that for my needs.
Now when I get home or at a hotel, I use the MacBook because I want the larger screen, features, etc. But then that's a different need.
By your very own logc then, Apple Macbooks should 'suck', however for what I need the equipment for, it works just fine.
Different needs, different products. Use what meets your needs.
"So were cigarettes a success?"
Very much so, enough to drive the economies of several states and was an important world trading commodity throughout the centuries.
You may have wanted to rephrase that to be... were cigarettes a success once the health concerns were widely acknowledged and acted upon by the general public? Then no, they are no longer a success. Times changed.
What people have done for centuries, and what they are doing now does not mean that it was or is the best thing to do. Times change. People, however, change more slowly.
Were bullets a success?
Were land mines a sucess?
Is beer a sucess?
Are nuclear bombs a sucess?
Now what the heck does any of all that have to do with netbooks? I don't know. But it just seems the fashion these days to ask some non-relevant question to support a one sided premise.
To help you follow better, the point is that just because something is cheap and a bunch of people buy it, doesn't mean it's any good. Which also means you provided even more examples that support the argument along with a number of irrelevant ones as well. (Exercise: Can you tell which of your examples is which?)
It may sound naive in light of the current popularity that the author noticed, but I think there's still a question of how permanent the netbook market is. It sounds like the buyers mentioned in the article are first-time buyers, so it's not clear that they will in fact be satisfied with their purchase. In some sense, netbooks are "cute" and cheap enough to be the computer world's equivalent of an impulse buy, so they're easy to justify as "all I'll need". But are they? It's easy to say, "I only use about 25% of the capacity of my expensive laptop" right up until the moment you have to jettison 80% of your capacity and actually use the downsized alternative. (This is one of the reasons the iPhone was able to successfully jump into the established phone market: what other phone makers thought was "good enough for a phone", like the web browsing experience, was not.)
Will these buyers find that they end up gravitating to either a smartphone (no-hands portable that also handles phone calls and is a music player), or a laptop (screen size, longer-life, higher capacity), with their cute little netbook sitting idle or perhaps used on a vacation once or twice a year?
And we're not even talking yet about Apple's rumored tablet. If people truly are getting netbooks simply to browse the web, a clamshell form factor with a keyboard is not necessary at all. For light-duty typing (email), people can even get by with a smartphone -- even one without a keyboard at all, like the iPhone. Playing movies, music? Don't need a keyboard at all.
They'll need to price it aggressively though-$500-700 is the point they would probably find some success at. But even then, they will invariably draw comparisons to the $200 netbooks that can and do everything the Apple product could do for a fraction of the cost. The same arguments they get now.
They'll probably bring out an upsized iPod Touch tablet, which will nicely differentiate itself from netbooks. Someone wed to WIndows and wanting a downsized, limited laptop will definitely get a netbook. Everyone else will consider a cool tablet that lets them directly manipulate photos, video, web pages, etc, like a sci-fi device.
(I'll also point out that if you change your words a bit to talk about phones, the same could be said for the iPhone. It came out at a very expensive price, there were tons of FREE (essentially) phones that did everything you needed a phone to do, there were cheaper smartphones and smartphones with more features, the market was super-well-established so Apple risked being a "me-to" company. Etc...)
"...downsized, limited laptop" And you think a tablet will be less limiting? It doesn't even have a keyboard.
You might have also noticed there was this little 'world economic crisis' thing going on too at the time which resulted in the loss of millions of jobs and people without jobs don't buy new stuff as quickly as you may otherwise think.
Think of it this way- how many of those laptops would have sold if there weren't netbooks? Is the person who can barely afford a $200 netbook really going to be the customer who waits to save up $500-$1000 to buy a laptop? Or are they simply a new customer entirely?
We don't have real numbers to reflect this trend yet and will really take 2-3 years to be really able to see what effect it had.
- by knobsturner September 13, 2009 8:27 AM PDT
- My buddy has a pile of 4 cheapo laptops all broken from 2 kids over 2 years.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by EvanSei September 13, 2009 5:00 PM PDT
- If you keep the laptop in a case and don't throw it or anything it can easily last an entire school year.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (274 Comments)1) Cheap full sized laptops last almost one school year (usually less).
2) A netbook will last longer because small items are harder to break, plus some of them are well made.
3) A well made laptop costs more. Look at physically small high end units from Lenovo, Apple, etc. They are solid.
There are no laptop specs on 'when will it fall apart'.
Its like saying a Chrysler with a V8 for $25k is a better car than a bmw with a 4 banger for $30k. It depends on what you want.
When competition is steep you usually get exactly what you pay for. So laptops, cars, etc that look like a bad deal because of specs, usually have some redeeming value (like they are built to last), that explains the difference in price.