NetBook revenue is being left out of this discussion. Intel sold a lot of Atom processors and didn't make much money from them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They are taking off considerably and I think Apple would be wise to get into the market somehow. This is a sign of the end times for premium computer manufacturers because we are reaching a point where these machines are fast enough to handle what people need.
NetBook revenue is being left out of this discussion. Intel sold a lot of Atom processors and didn't make much money from them.
Frankly, that is for Apple to worry about, not anyone here. If the product is in strong enough demand, Apple either need to make one (I don't care about their figures or profit margins, only how much the device costs me), or simply miss out and get left behind. Right now they're doing a good job of missing out and getting left behind.
Quote:
You also forget about the MacBook Air which is .76 inch thick and weighs 3 pounds.
...and £1000 too expensive. When Apple slices £1000 off the asking price of the MBA, then they'll have something to compete in the netbook market. When Apple say they can't make a decent computer for $500, it's all too clear these days that they are simply not trying very hard.
Frankly, that is for Apple to worry about, not anyone here. If the product is in strong enough demand, Apple either need to make one (I don't care about their figures or profit margins, only how much the device costs me), or simply miss out and get left behind. Right now they're doing a good job of missing out and getting left behind.
You are correct in one sense. Apple is missing out and getting left behind on billions in lost revenue and cutting their workforce like other computer companies. Because Apple only sells profitable products.
Quote:
...and £1000 too expensive. When Apple slices £1000 off the asking price of the MBA, then they'll have something to compete in the netbook market. When Apple say they can't make a decent computer for $500, it's all too clear these days that they are simply not trying very hard.
I was simply pointing out that Apple does make an ultra-lightweight notebook.
You also forget about the MacBook Air which is .76 inch thick and weighs 3 pounds.
I briefly considered the Air because it's a three pound Mac. Then it hit me that I could buy three Windows netbooks for less money and I'd be stupid to go for the Air. I may be a Mac fan but I'm not stupid.
It costs three times the price of a Windows netbook because it offers three times the performance of a Windows netbook. You get what you pay for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo
I briefly considered the Air because it's a three pound Mac. Then it hit me that I could buy three Windows netbooks for less money and I'd be stupid to go for the Air. I may be a Mac fan but I'm not stupid.
So my guess would be that that $300 Mac netbook would have to sell for $900-$999 to truly be as valuable to Apple.
Not entirely. I don't know how many studies have been done about netbook buyers/owners, but I would assume that they have another computer at home to do all of the "heavy lifting".
What I'm getting at is:
one - people would be willing to deal with a more hampered laptop because they have a computer at home to do everything else. If it runs the iPhone OS, all of the iApps for that OS, and it has Safari, a word processor, email, and iChat I think it would fulfill most people's needs
two - the netbook is an add on or an introduction to Mac. Simply put, if you put out a netbook, the people who buy it would likely have an iMac or Mini at home. Also, they would likely purchase multiple netbooks as well (is there a better option for getting your kid their own computer? not that I can think of). All of them can easily network with Apple's wireless networking technology, which we all know and love.
In other words, a netbook might not be as profitable by itself, but it could actually lead to even more sales (especially is users start buying from the app store to fill out their machines). Remember the whole "halo effect" that the mini was supposed to promote? (you know, the phrase we haven't heard since the last update to the mini two years ago?) A netbook could actually deliver on that.
It costs three times the price of a Windows netbook because it offers three times the performance of a Windows netbook.
I seriously doubt that.
However, I wasn't buying a portable computer to replace my desktop Mac. I just wanted something small and light. Even if the netbook's performance is one third that of an Air (again doubtful) it's perfectly adequate for my use.
The processor, graphics, and overall system speed of the MacBook Air are several times faster than that used in the netbook. But its par for the course as price over performance is the point of netbooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo
I seriously doubt that.
However, I wasn't buying a portable computer to replace my desktop Mac. I just wanted something small and light. Even if the netbook's performance is one third that of an Air (again doubtful) it's perfectly adequate for my use.
The processor, graphics, and overall system speed of the MacBook Air are several times faster than that used in the netbook. But its par for the course as price over performance is the point of netbooks.
You use the word "several" loosely.
I don't want to debate performance of the MacBook Air. It is obviously a faster computer than a current Atom netbook. Should I need a faster portable and have money to burn I might consider buying an Air. I'd also have to consider the larger size of the machine and the loss of two USB ports, ethernet port and SD card reader. It would be a tough call, considering it would cost me at least three times what I paid for my netbook.
The MacBook Air is a very nice portable Mac for those who can afford and justify it. But it can't really be considered a netbook and is not in consideration by many people who might buy a netbook. I would guess there are hundreds of times more netbooks sold than MacBook Airs. If Apple wants to play in the mini-notebook market, they need something other than the Air. (Some have suggested the iPod touch and iPhone are it; but they aren't fully functioning computers, with real keyboards, ports, etc.)
Since Apple's margins are in the 30% range and they're used to making hundreds on each computer sale, it would be very difficult for them to enter the mini-notebook market. I would understand if they stay out of it. Apple is a very successful company. They have like 30 billion in the bank.
The processor, graphics, and overall system speed of the MacBook Air are several times faster than that used in the netbook. But its par for the course as price over performance is the point of netbooks.
Dur, one is min. $1800 vs $300-400 (typically). But you're probably not going to be doing any major work on a MBA either, not with current speeds of most SSD's or if opting for the 4200 RPM 1.8" HD. The MBA is just a thinner MB, but with far fewer ports, and just big of a footprint. The Nvidia 9400 is nice, but Asus offers a 9300 in some it's netbooks for around $650.
I was simply pointing out the Air as Apple's ultra-portable option. I wasn't pushing you to purchase one. At the same time its not correct to point out the price difference between the Air and a netbook without adding that their are performance differences.
Quote:
(Some have suggested the iPod touch and iPhone are it; but they aren't fully functioning computers, with real keyboards, ports, etc.)
In 2008 the smartphone market sold 190 million units, while netbooks sold 11.4 million units. Their is a reason Apple has put its attention into the smartphone.
I have never forgiven Apple for replacing the white iBook with the bigger and heavier MacBook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
For poster "timmillea", the last iBook produced weighed 4.9 lbs per Apple's tech specs. The current unibody aluminum MacBook weighs 4.5 lbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The 12" iBook is actually slightly thicker (1.35" vs .95") and slightly heavier (4.9 lbs vs 4.5 lbs) than the MacBook.
From Apple Specs:
iBook G4 (mid 2005) - weight: 4.9 pounds (2.2 kg)
MacBook (2006) - weight: 5.2 pounds (2.36 kg)
The iBook was smaller and lighter than the MacBook that replaced it!
For those wondering about performance of OS X on current netBooks, I have been using an Advent 4211 (MSI Wind Clone) as my main 'Mac' for around four months. I upgraded the HD to 320GB, swapped the wireless card to function with Mac OS, doubled the RAM to 2GB and have an additional 9-cell battery which gives around 7 hours of "wireless connectivity". The performance is zippy for most things and I only really notice a performance hit compared to my old Intel iMac when using Open Office to open large multi-sheet workbooks, or ripping DVDs (from an external DVD drive). In docked mode I use an Apple wireless keyboard and mouse and it drives a 20" LCD display at 1680 by 1050 happily. In fact the latter is a Samsung model with built-in webcam and USB-based audio in and out, giving much of the functionality of Apple's latest Cinema Display.
The Advent weighs around 1.2Kg and cost £220. The upgrades took it to a little under £300. I would have happily paid up to double this for a Apple netBook but not four times for the MacBook Air.
It costs three times the price of a Windows netbook because it offers three times the performance of a Windows netbook. You get what you pay for.
What extra stuff are you doing on the MBA that warrants it being 3 times more expensive? Netbooks can browse the web, do email, office work, view pictures, videos, and light gaming. What more do you actually want from a portable device? Why spend 3 times what is necessary to achieve that? Most of the tasks above are relatively simple, which means that the processor in the MBA is sitting around idle most of the time, which is not a very good way of utilising your available resources. Meanwhile, the netbook processor is slower, but it is still more than adequate for those tasks.
Ironically, the one thing the MBA would be more powerful for is gaming, even though Macs are anything but a gaming platform! You'd have to stick on Windows anyway to make use of that.
To me, it seems like the MBA doesn't really know what it is. It touts being able to do all the things a netbook can do, and be very portable, but then is bizarrely 3 times more expensive!
To me, it seems like the MBA doesn't really know what it is. It touts being able to do all the things a netbook can do, and be very portable, but then is bizarrely 3 times more expensive!
The Air actually predates most of the netbook craze and has it's own cadre of competitors. It really represents a pre-netbook mentality when companies said that thin and light had to cost a lot (see Vaio TT, Voodoo's notebook, and others). The truth is that given a larger screen size and even the enhanced graphics of the Ion platform (see the 13" MSI Air clone or Dell Mini 12), most users would struggle to notice any difference in daily use between a netbook and an Air.
Remember that these netbooks are about as fast as the fastest Powerbook G4s were. That said, if you could get a 12 or 13" thin and light netbook for $800 or less (and that WILL happen this year) that does 90% of what an Air can, what's the point of the Air? It becomes an extremely small niche machine.
To me, it seems like the MBA doesn't really know what it is.
I think it's designed to fit the ultra-portable sector and the problem that I see is not so much that the Macbook Air doesn't fit its target market but rather the netbook market pretty much makes the ultra-portable market redundant.
Apple's product is probably safer than other ultra-portables like Sony's though because Sony does sacrifice performance and screen size and yet has an ultra-portable price tag. The Macbook Air is meant to be basically Macbook performance but much lighter (even though it's just over 30% lighter).
Still, I really don't know who needs this level of performance on the go - maybe business execs who sit in First Class on flights are playing Call of Duty 4.
I'm sure that we'll find out this year if netbooks will wipe out ultra-portables or if both markets can co-exist. I personally believe and hope that netbooks will reduce sales of ultra-portables to the point where they are no longer worth making.
As InfiniteSpacer mentions, Nvidia's Ion will be a significant blow to the ultra-portables. I reckon once they get dual-core Atoms this Summer, the ultra-portable sector is finished and people will simply call netbooks ultra-portables.
The first thing that came to mind here is why any rational person would buy a laptop for time card processing and other stationary computing tasks? From my perspective this is an example purchasing the wrong hardware for a given task.
As to all the hand wringing about profits for poor Apple, I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up making more money off a netbook. Say Apple targets a $500 selling price, which would be about right. At Apples volume the processor might be $45, the GPU $40, the RAM $35 and the display $65. All the rest of the crap isn't going to add up to much more $100. Apple could potentially make more than $200 off every machine.
Remember the other netbook makers are making a profit right now. Since Apple builds in a bigger profit margin and people here are completely willing to pay $500 dollars for a Apple netbook, they won't have a problem.
The more interesting issue is just exactly what will be Apples solution. For all the love of Atom I'm still thinking that Apple will come up with an ARM based system simply because of it's much lower power usage.
Frankly I don't see a lot of innovation in the current crop of netbooks. All Apple needs to do is integrate some tablet technology with some state of the art battery tech and they could have a machine that could run for days.
The iBook was smaller and lighter than the MacBook that replaced it!
You haven't forgiven Apple for adding 0.3 lbs to a computer? BTW, from 1 November 2007 onward, the WHITE MacBook has weighed in at 5.0 lbs. Now if you really want to lighten your load, go out and buy a 4.5 lb aluminum MacBook.
I agree. Netbooks certainly seem to have made ultra-portables redundant.
Apple have sort of signalled the way but have muddied the waters. The Air is a premium product that will eventually only come with an SSD. It has a full-size keyboard, premium full-size display, will be as fast as a standard MacBook, yet weigh as little as a netBook. An Apple netBook is likely to have a 10" or 12" screen, use a low-power processor and use a standard (old-fashioned rotating :-) hard drive. The product differentiation will be clear. Of course, the netBook will outsell the Air many times over, just as the iMac outsells the Mac Pro. An Apple netBook will still be an item of beauty and come at a premium over other netBooks.
Bets on a netBook release - March, July or October? or Never?
Comments
They are taking off considerably and I think Apple would be wise to get into the market somehow. This is a sign of the end times for premium computer manufacturers because we are reaching a point where these machines are fast enough to handle what people need.
NetBook revenue is being left out of this discussion. Intel sold a lot of Atom processors and didn't make much money from them.
Frankly, that is for Apple to worry about, not anyone here. If the product is in strong enough demand, Apple either need to make one (I don't care about their figures or profit margins, only how much the device costs me), or simply miss out and get left behind. Right now they're doing a good job of missing out and getting left behind.
You also forget about the MacBook Air which is .76 inch thick and weighs 3 pounds.
...and £1000 too expensive. When Apple slices £1000 off the asking price of the MBA, then they'll have something to compete in the netbook market. When Apple say they can't make a decent computer for $500, it's all too clear these days that they are simply not trying very hard.
Frankly, that is for Apple to worry about, not anyone here. If the product is in strong enough demand, Apple either need to make one (I don't care about their figures or profit margins, only how much the device costs me), or simply miss out and get left behind. Right now they're doing a good job of missing out and getting left behind.
You are correct in one sense. Apple is missing out and getting left behind on billions in lost revenue and cutting their workforce like other computer companies. Because Apple only sells profitable products.
...and £1000 too expensive. When Apple slices £1000 off the asking price of the MBA, then they'll have something to compete in the netbook market. When Apple say they can't make a decent computer for $500, it's all too clear these days that they are simply not trying very hard.
I was simply pointing out that Apple does make an ultra-lightweight notebook.
You also forget about the MacBook Air which is .76 inch thick and weighs 3 pounds.
I briefly considered the Air because it's a three pound Mac. Then it hit me that I could buy three Windows netbooks for less money and I'd be stupid to go for the Air. I may be a Mac fan but I'm not stupid.
I briefly considered the Air because it's a three pound Mac. Then it hit me that I could buy three Windows netbooks for less money and I'd be stupid to go for the Air. I may be a Mac fan but I'm not stupid.
So my guess would be that that $300 Mac netbook would have to sell for $900-$999 to truly be as valuable to Apple.
Not entirely. I don't know how many studies have been done about netbook buyers/owners, but I would assume that they have another computer at home to do all of the "heavy lifting".
What I'm getting at is:
one - people would be willing to deal with a more hampered laptop because they have a computer at home to do everything else. If it runs the iPhone OS, all of the iApps for that OS, and it has Safari, a word processor, email, and iChat I think it would fulfill most people's needs
two - the netbook is an add on or an introduction to Mac. Simply put, if you put out a netbook, the people who buy it would likely have an iMac or Mini at home. Also, they would likely purchase multiple netbooks as well (is there a better option for getting your kid their own computer? not that I can think of). All of them can easily network with Apple's wireless networking technology, which we all know and love.
In other words, a netbook might not be as profitable by itself, but it could actually lead to even more sales (especially is users start buying from the app store to fill out their machines). Remember the whole "halo effect" that the mini was supposed to promote? (you know, the phrase we haven't heard since the last update to the mini two years ago?) A netbook could actually deliver on that.
I don't care about their figures or profit margins, only how much the device costs me
Best business plan yet.
It costs three times the price of a Windows netbook because it offers three times the performance of a Windows netbook.
I seriously doubt that.
However, I wasn't buying a portable computer to replace my desktop Mac. I just wanted something small and light. Even if the netbook's performance is one third that of an Air (again doubtful) it's perfectly adequate for my use.
Netbooks use 1.6Ghz Atom processor, 533 FSB, Intel GMA 950 graphics, DDR2 memory.
MacBook Air uses 1.6/1.86Ghz Penryn processors, 1066 FSB, NVIDIA GeForce 9400 graphics, DDR3 memory.
The processor, graphics, and overall system speed of the MacBook Air are several times faster than that used in the netbook. But its par for the course as price over performance is the point of netbooks.
I seriously doubt that.
However, I wasn't buying a portable computer to replace my desktop Mac. I just wanted something small and light. Even if the netbook's performance is one third that of an Air (again doubtful) it's perfectly adequate for my use.
The processor, graphics, and overall system speed of the MacBook Air are several times faster than that used in the netbook. But its par for the course as price over performance is the point of netbooks.
You use the word "several" loosely.
I don't want to debate performance of the MacBook Air. It is obviously a faster computer than a current Atom netbook. Should I need a faster portable and have money to burn I might consider buying an Air. I'd also have to consider the larger size of the machine and the loss of two USB ports, ethernet port and SD card reader. It would be a tough call, considering it would cost me at least three times what I paid for my netbook.
The MacBook Air is a very nice portable Mac for those who can afford and justify it. But it can't really be considered a netbook and is not in consideration by many people who might buy a netbook. I would guess there are hundreds of times more netbooks sold than MacBook Airs. If Apple wants to play in the mini-notebook market, they need something other than the Air. (Some have suggested the iPod touch and iPhone are it; but they aren't fully functioning computers, with real keyboards, ports, etc.)
Since Apple's margins are in the 30% range and they're used to making hundreds on each computer sale, it would be very difficult for them to enter the mini-notebook market. I would understand if they stay out of it. Apple is a very successful company. They have like 30 billion in the bank.
Well lets see....
Netbooks use 1.6Ghz Atom processor, 533 FSB, Intel GMA 950 graphics, DDR2 memory.
MacBook Air uses 1.6/1.86Ghz Penryn processors, 1066 FSB, NVIDIA GeForce 9400 graphics, DDR3 memory.
The processor, graphics, and overall system speed of the MacBook Air are several times faster than that used in the netbook. But its par for the course as price over performance is the point of netbooks.
Dur, one is min. $1800 vs $300-400 (typically). But you're probably not going to be doing any major work on a MBA either, not with current speeds of most SSD's or if opting for the 4200 RPM 1.8" HD. The MBA is just a thinner MB, but with far fewer ports, and just big of a footprint. The Nvidia 9400 is nice, but Asus offers a 9300 in some it's netbooks for around $650.
You use the word "several" loosely.
I was simply pointing out the Air as Apple's ultra-portable option. I wasn't pushing you to purchase one. At the same time its not correct to point out the price difference between the Air and a netbook without adding that their are performance differences.
(Some have suggested the iPod touch and iPhone are it; but they aren't fully functioning computers, with real keyboards, ports, etc.)
In 2008 the smartphone market sold 190 million units, while netbooks sold 11.4 million units. Their is a reason Apple has put its attention into the smartphone.
I have never forgiven Apple for replacing the white iBook with the bigger and heavier MacBook.
For poster "timmillea", the last iBook produced weighed 4.9 lbs per Apple's tech specs. The current unibody aluminum MacBook weighs 4.5 lbs.
The 12" iBook is actually slightly thicker (1.35" vs .95") and slightly heavier (4.9 lbs vs 4.5 lbs) than the MacBook.
From Apple Specs:
iBook G4 (mid 2005) - weight: 4.9 pounds (2.2 kg)
MacBook (2006) - weight: 5.2 pounds (2.36 kg)
The iBook was smaller and lighter than the MacBook that replaced it!
For those wondering about performance of OS X on current netBooks, I have been using an Advent 4211 (MSI Wind Clone) as my main 'Mac' for around four months. I upgraded the HD to 320GB, swapped the wireless card to function with Mac OS, doubled the RAM to 2GB and have an additional 9-cell battery which gives around 7 hours of "wireless connectivity". The performance is zippy for most things and I only really notice a performance hit compared to my old Intel iMac when using Open Office to open large multi-sheet workbooks, or ripping DVDs (from an external DVD drive). In docked mode I use an Apple wireless keyboard and mouse and it drives a 20" LCD display at 1680 by 1050 happily. In fact the latter is a Samsung model with built-in webcam and USB-based audio in and out, giving much of the functionality of Apple's latest Cinema Display.
The Advent weighs around 1.2Kg and cost £220. The upgrades took it to a little under £300. I would have happily paid up to double this for a Apple netBook but not four times for the MacBook Air.
It costs three times the price of a Windows netbook because it offers three times the performance of a Windows netbook. You get what you pay for.
What extra stuff are you doing on the MBA that warrants it being 3 times more expensive? Netbooks can browse the web, do email, office work, view pictures, videos, and light gaming. What more do you actually want from a portable device? Why spend 3 times what is necessary to achieve that? Most of the tasks above are relatively simple, which means that the processor in the MBA is sitting around idle most of the time, which is not a very good way of utilising your available resources. Meanwhile, the netbook processor is slower, but it is still more than adequate for those tasks.
Ironically, the one thing the MBA would be more powerful for is gaming, even though Macs are anything but a gaming platform! You'd have to stick on Windows anyway to make use of that.
To me, it seems like the MBA doesn't really know what it is. It touts being able to do all the things a netbook can do, and be very portable, but then is bizarrely 3 times more expensive!
To me, it seems like the MBA doesn't really know what it is. It touts being able to do all the things a netbook can do, and be very portable, but then is bizarrely 3 times more expensive!
The Air actually predates most of the netbook craze and has it's own cadre of competitors. It really represents a pre-netbook mentality when companies said that thin and light had to cost a lot (see Vaio TT, Voodoo's notebook, and others). The truth is that given a larger screen size and even the enhanced graphics of the Ion platform (see the 13" MSI Air clone or Dell Mini 12), most users would struggle to notice any difference in daily use between a netbook and an Air.
Remember that these netbooks are about as fast as the fastest Powerbook G4s were. That said, if you could get a 12 or 13" thin and light netbook for $800 or less (and that WILL happen this year) that does 90% of what an Air can, what's the point of the Air? It becomes an extremely small niche machine.
To me, it seems like the MBA doesn't really know what it is.
I think it's designed to fit the ultra-portable sector and the problem that I see is not so much that the Macbook Air doesn't fit its target market but rather the netbook market pretty much makes the ultra-portable market redundant.
Apple's product is probably safer than other ultra-portables like Sony's though because Sony does sacrifice performance and screen size and yet has an ultra-portable price tag. The Macbook Air is meant to be basically Macbook performance but much lighter (even though it's just over 30% lighter).
Still, I really don't know who needs this level of performance on the go - maybe business execs who sit in First Class on flights are playing Call of Duty 4.
I'm sure that we'll find out this year if netbooks will wipe out ultra-portables or if both markets can co-exist. I personally believe and hope that netbooks will reduce sales of ultra-portables to the point where they are no longer worth making.
As InfiniteSpacer mentions, Nvidia's Ion will be a significant blow to the ultra-portables. I reckon once they get dual-core Atoms this Summer, the ultra-portable sector is finished and people will simply call netbooks ultra-portables.
As to all the hand wringing about profits for poor Apple, I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up making more money off a netbook. Say Apple targets a $500 selling price, which would be about right. At Apples volume the processor might be $45, the GPU $40, the RAM $35 and the display $65. All the rest of the crap isn't going to add up to much more $100. Apple could potentially make more than $200 off every machine.
Remember the other netbook makers are making a profit right now. Since Apple builds in a bigger profit margin and people here are completely willing to pay $500 dollars for a Apple netbook, they won't have a problem.
The more interesting issue is just exactly what will be Apples solution. For all the love of Atom I'm still thinking that Apple will come up with an ARM based system simply because of it's much lower power usage.
Frankly I don't see a lot of innovation in the current crop of netbooks. All Apple needs to do is integrate some tablet technology with some state of the art battery tech and they could have a machine that could run for days.
Dave
From Apple Specs:
iBook G4 (mid 2005) - weight: 4.9 pounds (2.2 kg)
MacBook (2006) - weight: 5.2 pounds (2.36 kg)
The iBook was smaller and lighter than the MacBook that replaced it!
You haven't forgiven Apple for adding 0.3 lbs to a computer? BTW, from 1 November 2007 onward, the WHITE MacBook has weighed in at 5.0 lbs. Now if you really want to lighten your load, go out and buy a 4.5 lb aluminum MacBook.
I agree. Netbooks certainly seem to have made ultra-portables redundant.
Apple have sort of signalled the way but have muddied the waters. The Air is a premium product that will eventually only come with an SSD. It has a full-size keyboard, premium full-size display, will be as fast as a standard MacBook, yet weigh as little as a netBook. An Apple netBook is likely to have a 10" or 12" screen, use a low-power processor and use a standard (old-fashioned rotating :-) hard drive. The product differentiation will be clear. Of course, the netBook will outsell the Air many times over, just as the iMac outsells the Mac Pro. An Apple netBook will still be an item of beauty and come at a premium over other netBooks.
Bets on a netBook release - March, July or October? or Never?