It would be hard to tell the difference between the really cheap notebooks, and the really good netbooks.
I suppose one could separate them out by processor type. Anything running on an Atom class chip would be ruled a netbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
iPhones are phones, regardless of how much "personal computing” one can do on them they still don’t fall into the class that is being compared. While these netbooks are cheap junk that aren’t going to replace most people’s primary machine they should be part of the general comparison but there is also nothing wrong with also having a stats that show the non-netbook notebooks and PCs that fall into certain pricing categories.
The metrics we've been seeing lately cry out for re-definition in several respects - and should be more segmented by classes of device.
And actually one can do more "personal computing" on the latest iDevices than on many netbooks. e.g., I was testing the Verizon-bundled HP/XP/IE-running netbook to get some directions on Google Maps and it wouldn't show me actual maps of where I had to walk after getting off the subway. My Mac and old XP tower do, and I'll bet an iPhone would.
Also, the redefinitions need to be forward-looking as paradigms of both consumer and business computing evolve. In point of fact "most people's" and many businesses' needs for digital services will increasingly be met by devices which are not what we've come to accept as a personal computer. You can cogently argue that towers (from the Mac Pro to the Mini) are already well on the way to becoming niche devices and their market share will certainly steadily decline in the future.
And laptops/notebooks are overkill for millions and will only become more so as iDevices, netbooks and others (e.g., "Chromebooks" and whatever Apple has up its sleeves) evolve and proliferate. The replacement LG Voyager I picked up yesterday at the Verizon store for my busted one is no iPhone, but now has usable links to my various email accounts and will do the web OK in a pinch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Apple's products start so much higher than the base models of the PC world, I don't see how cutting that by $100 is going to make any difference. The people who buy Macs really seek them out, and know what they want. No one is saying "oh I'd really like this $1200 Mac instead of this $600 Dell laptop, if only it was $1100 I'd go for it."
I agree to an extent, but quite a few people do have budgets they pay attention to as well as dreams, and incremental price changes do have some influence on buying decisions at the margins.
And marketing and pricing - and the perceptions they create - are linked to buying decisions - especially in tough and uncertain economic times. Otherwise many products would have been priced at $1.00, $100 or $1000 for decades (or centuries, more like) rather than the transparent, but enduring 99 cents, $99.95 and $999.
Personally, I was also impressed (and motivated) when Apple recently not only updated, but gave real, if modest, price decreases on the latest Macbook refreshes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
There is also a potential issue with weakening a product or brand’s long term desirability by making it too accessible to too many people too quickly. So far, Apple has shown they are doing it right, even if it does seem as though they are being too cautious at times.
Generally, yes. I've watched many companies cheapen "premium" brands over time. Way back when, Panasonic went from mid-level to junk in stereos, and then brought out their "Technics" lines to regain prestige. And within a year began to apply the Technics label to cheaper and cheaper machines. Sony did the same with its Triniton TV's and other brands. More recently, companies like Canon and Nikon have cannibalized the value of brands like PowerShot, Elph, Coolpix, etc.
So Apple has really distinguished itself by not succumbing to this temptation. Still, as a cheap old curmudgeon, I've done much of my Apple buying during the back to school specials to buy still great products during their "channel clearout period."
And the recent $99 pricing on the 3G phones - with its development costs already amortized and its guaranteed stream of ongoing revenue from ATT and the App Store guaranteeing long-term margin, shows a newish strategy wrinkle which may eventually bring more Apple products to the more huddled masses without cheapening the brand itself. (Confession: sometimes I do feel a bit elitist showing off my Apple logo around friends who simply have no access other than used machines they probably wouldn't and likely don't know how to find and buy.)
(Note: A few companies have successfully done the opposite, e.g., Toyota bringing out the Lexus.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun
4th place is pretty impressive, especially with the much higher average cost of an apple machine.
you can't get an apple notebook less than $1000. you can't get an apple desktop less than $600. essentially apple's prices are still double that of other manufacturers. it's amazing what making (and more importantly, marketing) a more desirable product can do.
Again, better differentiated metrics would give us a lot more insight into what's really happening in buying and use of computers and multi-function computing devices. And see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market.
And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included let's prorate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.
The bombastic tone of your overall post led people to mostly ignore the above salient facts.
In fact, I remember AI posting a story which showed Apple does indeed OWN the over-a-grand computing market. It was an astounding percentage if anyone remembers it (30%? 60%). So ranking Apple by revenues should place them much higher on the totem pole if it takes four-five Acer notebooks to bring in what one 13" MBP does - and Apple probably makes more on that one machine than Acer does on their four or five.
One can go broke selling any amount of anything without sufficient margin. Most one client/night call girls probably live better (and longer!) than street prostitutes turning half-hour tricks on street corners.
(This post written on my still sassy and classy five year old iBook G4, which just yesterday survived yet another trip from a bed to a hard floor, and, no, LOL, no lustful activities were involved.)
I recently bought my daughter a Toshiba mini NB205, upgraded to 2 GB RAM.
This model just came out, and has received very good reviews.
My daughter wanted a netbook for the summer in London for herself just for the purpose of internet use, IMing, Facebook, Skype and other stuff that she could contact us with, and to keep in contact with her friends.
I recently bought my daughter a Toshiba mini NB205, upgraded to 2 GB RAM.
This model just came out, and has received very good reviews.
My daughter wanted a netbook for the summer in London for herself just for the purpose of internet use, IMing, Facebook, Skype and other stuff that she could contact us with, and to keep in contact with her friends.
But, boy, is that SLOW!
Toshiba states that they recommend Windows Vista Ultimate, but the set ups all look to have WinXP. I home you have Win XP on it. Is she going to have a proper machine in the UK, too?
PS: Except for Skype (though that will change) all the other apps you mention would work great with the stated proposal of ChromeOS. It?ll surely run a lot faster and give your daughter better battery life, too.
Toshiba states that they recommend Windows Vista Ultimate, but the set ups all look to have WinXP. I home you have Win XP on it. Is she going to have a proper machine in the UK, too?
PS: Except for Skype (though that will change) all the other apps you mention would work great with the stated proposal of ChromeOS. It’ll surely run a lot faster and give your daughter better battery life, too.
Yes, it's XP. There is no way anything heavier than the version that came with it could function usefully.
She'll end up with a 24" iMac in the fall.
Skype works. Everything is slow though. And Toshiba loads their own software on it as well. Since I couldn't buy this earlier than the day before we left. I did install all the software she needed. I didn't get a chance to check Toshiba's software out, and optimize the machine. It has a 9 hour battery.
And the iphone is an amazing computing machine that mimics much of what an acer can do.
And by the by, who decided that the ipodtouch was not an ipod anymore and it sales get thrown into a phone sales basket ?
These are different types of devices. You can make any broad or narrow category you wish to satisfy your needs, but it?s disingenuous to not see the limitations of these different devices and how they fit into different groupings.
The iPod Touch is an iPod. It name starts with iPod. You may be thinking of the web stats that show the number of mobile OS X devices, which is fair since the Touch and iPhone use iPhone OS X. This does make the Touch an iPhone or mean it should be grouped into iPhone sales because of the nomenclature of the OS by Apple.
Depends on who pays that attention. Developers needing to decide whether they will produce a Mac version of their app (in addition to a Windows version) care only about market share, and don't give a damn about Apple's revenue. Also since Mac users care more about what apps are available for them then what profit Apple generated, market share, not revenue, should be IMHO more important to Mac users as well.
It is a fair point but not IMO wholly correct. There are several other factors:
1) Apple's revenue/average unit price is also a indicator of the wealth of the buyer which should correlate to propensity to spend further $s on software, accessories etc. While I agree mkt share is probably the #1 consideration, in your example, propensity to spend is also important - if mac's are 10% of the market, but average spend is 3x that of PCs, and that correlates to software/accessory sales (which seems fair watching people buy stuff in the Apple stores), then is makes Macs the equivalent of about a quarter of the market - still smaller, but large enough to drive a worthwhile market in Mac SW/accessories
2) Segments - think of all the PCs that are out there in corporate hands - that will only minimally drive consumer software purchases, or accessories. Therefore, the Mac share is going to be much more significant in consumer/personal use machines than of the whole market, again making the Mac market a better proposition for makers of consumer software. Obviously, the same has always applied to niche markets like high end audio/video etc.
Market share is not to be ignored but it is too blunt an instrument to make any worthwhile sweeping generalizations about
The light from Apple blinds some fans from their faults.
They are overpriced. They are worth a premium but not the premium Apple charges.
There are desktop design cul-de-sacs and inexplicable CPU choices...when cheaper stronger performing parts are there to be used.
And they're a year behind the PC industry on quad core...on consumer desktops.
5/6s of the line is laptop performance in one form or another.
*Shrugs. 'X' is nice. But if it wasn't. I wouldn't buy Apple computers.
Still...my iMac is nice and sexy. And I have no complaints so far. Except it gets really hot on the left side.
This overpriced mantra is soooo boooring and just plain wrong in most cases.
It only works when you compare Apples and Oranges.
Yes, you can build a MacPro out of parts with i7 processors for less - not comparable
Yes, the mini is a little niche machine that is expensive for the parts - but you cannot get another desktop as small - the minute you try, the mini looks like a decent deal again
Yes, the MacBook Pro is more than some fat, heavy plastic POS from Dell/HP - but those are not comparable either - inferior in many meaningful ways - construction, battery life, weight, design, etc.
If you spec a truly comparable PC laptop against a 13" MBP it becomes far more competitive. I just went through all this for a friend's daughter about to go to college...
Sony SR - similar weight, spec etc. $1650 w/3yr warranty
Dell XPS 13 - heavier, crap battery life, overheats, etc. $1429 w/3 yr warranty
When truly looking at comparable machines by features and by packaging, Macs turn out to be good value. That is where Apple is competing.
The fact that Apple doesn't address all mkt segments is their choice. It's like saying that a Chrysler 300 SRT8 is a much better deal than a BMW M3 coz it's cheaper and (almost as fast). Very few M3 buyers would ever buy an SRT8 and certainly not one as or more expensive than the BMW as my examples above proved to be.
Apples and Oranges... (and look what happened to "good value" Chrysler)
so something of OSX must be inside of the iphone . The iphone still computes.
My microwave computes too, but we can't count that.
It's accepted that there are three "computer" operating systems around today.
One is Windows and it's variants.
Two is OS X and its variant (such as Server).
Three are Unix based or inspired OS's.
There are a number of Phone and PDA OS's, but they really don't qualify. They run different software, they have much smaller screens. They have much less storage. They don't connect to standard networks. They have very small keyboards, both mechanical and virtual. Their processors are much weaker.
They don't easily connect to peripherals.
They are in a group by themselves, and that is ok. We don't have to squeeze them into a netbook sort of category.
I know that Apple has sorta kinda said that the iPhone is their netbook, but they don't really mean it.
And, should you be thinking of bringing it up, yes, the iPhone/Touch do use a basic version of OS X. But it's got so much of what the computer version needs to run left out that it can't run the same software. And that includes the fact that it has its very own GUI.
We'll see what happens in October if all the rumors about Apple coming out with a 9.7" tablet device are true.
If apple does another price drop, beefs up/lowers the price of the mini and comes out with a netbook, they'll be competing all across the board and will start to do some serious damage.
The fact that apple legal got all over M$ for their ads showing the wrong pricing implies that M$'s campaign was a threat. Lower prices are good for everyone. Some of apple's prices if they came down a little more would not only be comparable to crappy intel boxes but would be better.
If apple does another price drop, beefs up/lowers the price of the mini and comes out with a netbook, they'll be competing all across the board and will start to do some serious damage.
The fact that apple legal got all over M$ for their ads showing the wrong pricing implies that M$'s campaign was a threat. Lower prices are good for everyone. Some of apple's prices if they came down a little more would not only be comparable to crappy intel boxes but would be better.
we'll see.
If Apple can afford to do that. You might notice that Apple didn't just lower prices, they modified what is in the machine.
Comments
It would be hard to tell the difference between the really cheap notebooks, and the really good netbooks.
I suppose one could separate them out by processor type. Anything running on an Atom class chip would be ruled a netbook.
iPhones are phones, regardless of how much "personal computing” one can do on them they still don’t fall into the class that is being compared. While these netbooks are cheap junk that aren’t going to replace most people’s primary machine they should be part of the general comparison but there is also nothing wrong with also having a stats that show the non-netbook notebooks and PCs that fall into certain pricing categories.
The metrics we've been seeing lately cry out for re-definition in several respects - and should be more segmented by classes of device.
And actually one can do more "personal computing" on the latest iDevices than on many netbooks. e.g., I was testing the Verizon-bundled HP/XP/IE-running netbook to get some directions on Google Maps and it wouldn't show me actual maps of where I had to walk after getting off the subway. My Mac and old XP tower do, and I'll bet an iPhone would.
Also, the redefinitions need to be forward-looking as paradigms of both consumer and business computing evolve. In point of fact "most people's" and many businesses' needs for digital services will increasingly be met by devices which are not what we've come to accept as a personal computer. You can cogently argue that towers (from the Mac Pro to the Mini) are already well on the way to becoming niche devices and their market share will certainly steadily decline in the future.
And laptops/notebooks are overkill for millions and will only become more so as iDevices, netbooks and others (e.g., "Chromebooks" and whatever Apple has up its sleeves) evolve and proliferate. The replacement LG Voyager I picked up yesterday at the Verizon store for my busted one is no iPhone, but now has usable links to my various email accounts and will do the web OK in a pinch.
Apple's products start so much higher than the base models of the PC world, I don't see how cutting that by $100 is going to make any difference. The people who buy Macs really seek them out, and know what they want. No one is saying "oh I'd really like this $1200 Mac instead of this $600 Dell laptop, if only it was $1100 I'd go for it."
I agree to an extent, but quite a few people do have budgets they pay attention to as well as dreams, and incremental price changes do have some influence on buying decisions at the margins.
And marketing and pricing - and the perceptions they create - are linked to buying decisions - especially in tough and uncertain economic times. Otherwise many products would have been priced at $1.00, $100 or $1000 for decades (or centuries, more like) rather than the transparent, but enduring 99 cents, $99.95 and $999.
Personally, I was also impressed (and motivated) when Apple recently not only updated, but gave real, if modest, price decreases on the latest Macbook refreshes.
There is also a potential issue with weakening a product or brand’s long term desirability by making it too accessible to too many people too quickly. So far, Apple has shown they are doing it right, even if it does seem as though they are being too cautious at times.
Generally, yes. I've watched many companies cheapen "premium" brands over time. Way back when, Panasonic went from mid-level to junk in stereos, and then brought out their "Technics" lines to regain prestige. And within a year began to apply the Technics label to cheaper and cheaper machines. Sony did the same with its Triniton TV's and other brands. More recently, companies like Canon and Nikon have cannibalized the value of brands like PowerShot, Elph, Coolpix, etc.
So Apple has really distinguished itself by not succumbing to this temptation. Still, as a cheap old curmudgeon, I've done much of my Apple buying during the back to school specials to buy still great products during their "channel clearout period."
And the recent $99 pricing on the 3G phones - with its development costs already amortized and its guaranteed stream of ongoing revenue from ATT and the App Store guaranteeing long-term margin, shows a newish strategy wrinkle which may eventually bring more Apple products to the more huddled masses without cheapening the brand itself. (Confession: sometimes I do feel a bit elitist showing off my Apple logo around friends who simply have no access other than used machines they probably wouldn't and likely don't know how to find and buy.)
(Note: A few companies have successfully done the opposite, e.g., Toyota bringing out the Lexus.)
4th place is pretty impressive, especially with the much higher average cost of an apple machine.
you can't get an apple notebook less than $1000. you can't get an apple desktop less than $600. essentially apple's prices are still double that of other manufacturers. it's amazing what making (and more importantly, marketing) a more desirable product can do.
Again, better differentiated metrics would give us a lot more insight into what's really happening in buying and use of computers and multi-function computing devices. And see below.
What is apple inc. true market share where they choose to compete ??? $999 plus market.
And since apple devices last longer and most of the software is included let's prorate thier true daily cost of owning an apple over an average lifetime of 3.5 yrs per machine.
The bombastic tone of your overall post led people to mostly ignore the above salient facts.
In fact, I remember AI posting a story which showed Apple does indeed OWN the over-a-grand computing market. It was an astounding percentage if anyone remembers it (30%? 60%). So ranking Apple by revenues should place them much higher on the totem pole if it takes four-five Acer notebooks to bring in what one 13" MBP does - and Apple probably makes more on that one machine than Acer does on their four or five.
One can go broke selling any amount of anything without sufficient margin. Most one client/night call girls probably live better (and longer!) than street prostitutes turning half-hour tricks on street corners.
(This post written on my still sassy and classy five year old iBook G4, which just yesterday survived yet another trip from a bed to a hard floor, and, no, LOL, no lustful activities were involved.)
This model just came out, and has received very good reviews.
My daughter wanted a netbook for the summer in London for herself just for the purpose of internet use, IMing, Facebook, Skype and other stuff that she could contact us with, and to keep in contact with her friends.
But, boy, is that SLOW!
I recently bought my daughter a Toshiba mini NB205, upgraded to 2 GB RAM.
This model just came out, and has received very good reviews.
My daughter wanted a netbook for the summer in London for herself just for the purpose of internet use, IMing, Facebook, Skype and other stuff that she could contact us with, and to keep in contact with her friends.
But, boy, is that SLOW!
Toshiba states that they recommend Windows Vista Ultimate, but the set ups all look to have WinXP. I home you have Win XP on it. Is she going to have a proper machine in the UK, too?
PS: Except for Skype (though that will change) all the other apps you mention would work great with the stated proposal of ChromeOS. It?ll surely run a lot faster and give your daughter better battery life, too.
Toshiba states that they recommend Windows Vista Ultimate, but the set ups all look to have WinXP. I home you have Win XP on it. Is she going to have a proper machine in the UK, too?
PS: Except for Skype (though that will change) all the other apps you mention would work great with the stated proposal of ChromeOS. It’ll surely run a lot faster and give your daughter better battery life, too.
Yes, it's XP. There is no way anything heavier than the version that came with it could function usefully.
She'll end up with a 24" iMac in the fall.
Skype works. Everything is slow though. And Toshiba loads their own software on it as well. Since I couldn't buy this earlier than the day before we left. I did install all the software she needed. I didn't get a chance to check Toshiba's software out, and optimize the machine. It has a 9 hour battery.
iPhones are phones, regardless of how much "personal computing? one can do on them they still don?t fall into the class that is being compared. .
My point was that An iphone or itouch could also be in the over all count since the lowlife netbooks make the cut.
All 3 are still computers. Whether it rings or not .
My point was that An iphone or itouch could also be in the over all count since the lowlife netbooks make the cut.
All 3 are still computers. Whether it rings or not .
You run to problems if you want to start including any device that can technically ?compute?.
I have a cheap Acer laptop that is 6 years old and has never had a problem EVER
My macbook is on its 3rd magsafe and the top panel has been replaced twice due to cracking .
What was that about quality again ? Applecare is £150 I can buy a 3 year on-site warranty from Acer for £60.
I still like Apple but YOU TALK BALLS!
Hey i am sorry about your apple woes and its great that a cheap netbook fills your needs.
I regret that my tone was abrasive is a ny thing .
9
You run to problems if you want to start including any device that can technically “compute”.
No my dear friend a computer is a computer.
And the iphone is an amazing computing machine that mimics much of what an acer can do.
And by the by, who decided that the ipodtouch was not an ipod anymore and it sales get thrown into a phone sales basket ?
Because iPhones don't runs OS X software.
Well an iphone links and syncs with OSX
so something of OSX must be inside of the iphone . The iphone still computes.
No my dear friend a computer is a computer.
And the iphone is an amazing computing machine that mimics much of what an acer can do.
And by the by, who decided that the ipodtouch was not an ipod anymore and it sales get thrown into a phone sales basket ?
These are different types of devices. You can make any broad or narrow category you wish to satisfy your needs, but it?s disingenuous to not see the limitations of these different devices and how they fit into different groupings.
The iPod Touch is an iPod. It name starts with iPod. You may be thinking of the web stats that show the number of mobile OS X devices, which is fair since the Touch and iPhone use iPhone OS X. This does make the Touch an iPhone or mean it should be grouped into iPhone sales because of the nomenclature of the OS by Apple.
I still like Apple but YOU TALK BALLS!
Heh.
The light from Apple blinds some fans from their faults.
They are overpriced. They are worth a premium but not the premium Apple charges.
There are desktop design cul-de-sacs and inexplicable CPU choices...when cheaper stronger performing parts are there to be used.
And they're a year behind the PC industry on quad core...on consumer desktops.
5/6s of the line is laptop performance in one form or another.
*Shrugs. 'X' is nice. But if it wasn't. I wouldn't buy Apple computers.
Still...my iMac is nice and sexy. And I have no complaints so far. Except it gets really hot on the left side.
Depends on who pays that attention. Developers needing to decide whether they will produce a Mac version of their app (in addition to a Windows version) care only about market share, and don't give a damn about Apple's revenue. Also since Mac users care more about what apps are available for them then what profit Apple generated, market share, not revenue, should be IMHO more important to Mac users as well.
It is a fair point but not IMO wholly correct. There are several other factors:
1) Apple's revenue/average unit price is also a indicator of the wealth of the buyer which should correlate to propensity to spend further $s on software, accessories etc. While I agree mkt share is probably the #1 consideration, in your example, propensity to spend is also important - if mac's are 10% of the market, but average spend is 3x that of PCs, and that correlates to software/accessory sales (which seems fair watching people buy stuff in the Apple stores), then is makes Macs the equivalent of about a quarter of the market - still smaller, but large enough to drive a worthwhile market in Mac SW/accessories
2) Segments - think of all the PCs that are out there in corporate hands - that will only minimally drive consumer software purchases, or accessories. Therefore, the Mac share is going to be much more significant in consumer/personal use machines than of the whole market, again making the Mac market a better proposition for makers of consumer software. Obviously, the same has always applied to niche markets like high end audio/video etc.
Market share is not to be ignored but it is too blunt an instrument to make any worthwhile sweeping generalizations about
Heh.
The light from Apple blinds some fans from their faults.
They are overpriced. They are worth a premium but not the premium Apple charges.
There are desktop design cul-de-sacs and inexplicable CPU choices...when cheaper stronger performing parts are there to be used.
And they're a year behind the PC industry on quad core...on consumer desktops.
5/6s of the line is laptop performance in one form or another.
*Shrugs. 'X' is nice. But if it wasn't. I wouldn't buy Apple computers.
Still...my iMac is nice and sexy. And I have no complaints so far. Except it gets really hot on the left side.
This overpriced mantra is soooo boooring and just plain wrong in most cases.
It only works when you compare Apples and Oranges.
Yes, you can build a MacPro out of parts with i7 processors for less - not comparable
Yes, the mini is a little niche machine that is expensive for the parts - but you cannot get another desktop as small - the minute you try, the mini looks like a decent deal again
Yes, the MacBook Pro is more than some fat, heavy plastic POS from Dell/HP - but those are not comparable either - inferior in many meaningful ways - construction, battery life, weight, design, etc.
If you spec a truly comparable PC laptop against a 13" MBP it becomes far more competitive. I just went through all this for a friend's daughter about to go to college...
MBP with decent spec (edu discount) - $1479 (inc Applecare) + iPod Touch
Sony SR - similar weight, spec etc. $1650 w/3yr warranty
Dell XPS 13 - heavier, crap battery life, overheats, etc. $1429 w/3 yr warranty
When truly looking at comparable machines by features and by packaging, Macs turn out to be good value. That is where Apple is competing.
The fact that Apple doesn't address all mkt segments is their choice. It's like saying that a Chrysler 300 SRT8 is a much better deal than a BMW M3 coz it's cheaper and (almost as fast). Very few M3 buyers would ever buy an SRT8 and certainly not one as or more expensive than the BMW as my examples above proved to be.
Apples and Oranges... (and look what happened to "good value" Chrysler)
My point was that An iphone or itouch could also be in the over all count since the lowlife netbooks make the cut.
All 3 are still computers. Whether it rings or not .
But it must use an OS that can work with computer software, not just phone software. Those are a separate category.
Well an iphone links and syncs with OSX
so something of OSX must be inside of the iphone . The iphone still computes.
My microwave computes too, but we can't count that.
It's accepted that there are three "computer" operating systems around today.
One is Windows and it's variants.
Two is OS X and its variant (such as Server).
Three are Unix based or inspired OS's.
There are a number of Phone and PDA OS's, but they really don't qualify. They run different software, they have much smaller screens. They have much less storage. They don't connect to standard networks. They have very small keyboards, both mechanical and virtual. Their processors are much weaker.
They don't easily connect to peripherals.
They are in a group by themselves, and that is ok. We don't have to squeeze them into a netbook sort of category.
I know that Apple has sorta kinda said that the iPhone is their netbook, but they don't really mean it.
And, should you be thinking of bringing it up, yes, the iPhone/Touch do use a basic version of OS X. But it's got so much of what the computer version needs to run left out that it can't run the same software. And that includes the fact that it has its very own GUI.
We'll see what happens in October if all the rumors about Apple coming out with a 9.7" tablet device are true.
The fact that apple legal got all over M$ for their ads showing the wrong pricing implies that M$'s campaign was a threat. Lower prices are good for everyone. Some of apple's prices if they came down a little more would not only be comparable to crappy intel boxes but would be better.
we'll see.
If apple does another price drop, beefs up/lowers the price of the mini and comes out with a netbook, they'll be competing all across the board and will start to do some serious damage.
The fact that apple legal got all over M$ for their ads showing the wrong pricing implies that M$'s campaign was a threat. Lower prices are good for everyone. Some of apple's prices if they came down a little more would not only be comparable to crappy intel boxes but would be better.
we'll see.
If Apple can afford to do that. You might notice that Apple didn't just lower prices, they modified what is in the machine.