"Analysts say that Intel would have to sell three times as many processors for the netbook market to make the same profit it does on the sale of a single laptop processor."
With Joost and iPlayer apps available, we know Apple has nothing against approving video streaming apps. Slingplayer is soon to come. I've seen requests for iPhone apps on Hulu.com and TV.com community boards. With the meteoric growth of mobile devices, I believe they are both working on it.
If the iPhone had Flash, the video playback would still likely be variable. The video would still have to be of limited size and data rate. Flash video formats are completely different sizes from website to website.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: My iPhone would be just fine as a replacement for my Netbook if I could watch streaming TV from the networks on it. This means an App Store approved portal or Flash on iPhone OS X.
It has already been reported that laptops outsold desktops. I'm pretty sure that the low cost of netbooks will only push this further. Nothing new to see here.\
that's like saying Apple should be scared because Macbook/Macbook Pros are outselling their desktops.
Some major game titles ship 64-bit binaries (just Google it)... Does not necessarily give a performance boost, maybe a slight boost.
None of these 64-bit games are shipping on physical media. They're glorified tech demoes than require the gamer to download the binaries from the internet and are virtually unsupported. Walk into a games store and none of the games on the shelf will be 64-bit.
Quote:
Running 64-bit Windows is useful as a previous poster mentioned because you can access more than 3GB of RAM. If I have 4GB of RAM (which is very cheap nowadays) any 32bit OS is wasting my RAM.
As I've already said, modern PC games don't use more than 2.5-3GB. Anything above that is wasted for games. RAM quality is much more important. 3GB of DDR3 will outperform 6GB of DDR2 in Crysis benchmarks. Modern graphics cards use DDR5 and even 512MB of it is ample for most monitor resolutions.
For general use, more RAM is better. For gaming, anything above 3GB is currently a waste.
With Joost and iPlayer apps available, we know Apple has nothing against approving video streaming apps. Slingplayer is soon to come. I've seen requests for iPhone apps on Hulu.com and TV.com community boards. With the meteoric growth of mobile devices, I believe they are both working on it.
If the iPhone had Flash, the video playback would still likely be variable. The video would still have to be of limited size and data rate. Flash video formats are completely different sizes from website to website.
I'll have to check out those players, especially if iPlayer will get me Top Gear.
I really don't think Flash is the answer, merely an answer. I had to by a netbook recently. I bought a Acer Aspire One at Walmart for $300. it barely plays Hulu vids at 360p and can't smoothly play Hulu's higher0def 480p vids. Quite sad, though this should change when better GPUs arrive.
This article seems to be a very mixed bag (full of Apples and Oranges that are being compared).
It says that processor shipments are down big time and makes it sound like the failure of Windows is at fault when it's rather obvious that the current recession has something to do with it. It then compares that downtrend to Apple (which is doing great), but doesn't Apple use these same processors? That makes no sense to me.
It goes on to talk about how one component of Apple's success is it's "refusal to sell netbooks" but this isn't really so. Apple's so called refusal to sell netbooks is really because they require a healthy margin on everything they make. It's those fatter margins on all their products that's protecting them from the recession. It's also the fact that they cater to the wealthy end of the market and don't focus on the average consumer. But then it doesn't sound so angelic when you put it that way does it?
Then the article segue's into the iPhone story as yet another reason why Apple is doing good and "resisting the netbook" with a low end entry of it's own, but the product is only "low end" because of the subsidies. The "coup" here is the fact that they have somehow developed a brand new computer platform that someone else will pay half the cost of, just to distribute for them. I mean, this is terribly smart of Apple to do this, but really it's another indication of the fact that they really *can't* compete on the low end. They are a luxury product maker that is surviving because they have huge margins on expensive merchandise. The article basically admits this in it's last section about "Macs moving upscale."
While I was happy to read the details on the poor adoption of 64 bit Windows, mixing in all that stuff at the end about how Apple is differentiating their product with faster 64 bit software and so on kind of sounds like empty promotion to me and the whole article is peppered with the same sort of stuff really. The figures quoted for windows high-end gamers would seem to indicate that the consumer doesn't care at the moment about 64 bit computing. In this sense, if Apple succeeds in changing that perception with Snow Leopard, then it's really just another marketing success isn't it? Not so much a technological triumph.
I don't really disagree with most of what's being said here, but this article strikes me as a rambling bit of confusing Apple promotion that doesn't have much to do with it's title. All that's really happening here is the recession, and Apple is surviving because they are the BMW of computers. Big, rich and catering to the segment of the market that's not feeling the recessions' pinch as much. Without separating out the effects of the recession, I think all the talk about Apple's value proposition (especially on products yet to be released), is really just fluffy speculation.
"Analysts say that Intel would have to sell three times as many processors for the netbook market to make the same profit it does on the sale of a single laptop processor."
But how does that benefit the average user who browses the web and checks their email? It doesn't. And that's what netbooks are used for.
Because it answers this question not yours:
"Why would gamers benefit the most from a 64-bit OS? Not a single mainstream PC game ships with 64-bit binaries on the disc. It's a chicken and egg situation."
It goes on to talk about how one component of Apple's success is it's "refusal to sell netbooks" but this isn't really so. Apple's so called refusal to sell netbooks is really because they require a healthy margin on everything they make.
Yes, that is the point. Apple insulated itself from cannibalization by not offering an alternative to its high margin products. Therefore no netbook and no xMac has contributed to Apple's continued profitability because OSX is a competitive advantage over cheaper windows or linux based netbooks and towers. Something that Vista based notebooks and towers don't enjoy.
Prince is spinning this as if Apple will be unaffected. But I have my doubts.
He's spinning it? How so? Why don't you provide some details as to how and where his arguments are overly subjective? If you don't back up your assertion then you're not contributing anything significant to the discussion.
I think the computer world is all just way past the point of diminishing returns. The majority of computer users just don't need to upgrade to anything. And none of the offerings by any of the manufacturers prove otherwise.
As a video editor and part time gamer, I feel like I'm one of the last people who actually cares about eeking out a little more performance out of my systems. But even then, any extra performance that I can get by upgrading my hardware or software is miniscule compared to what my systems already do! They run everything well enough.
It's no wonder Apple is shifting focus to the iPods/iPhones. At least there you have a significant growth market with a large potential for "virgin" users. In comparison, going after "computer platfom converts" might net a little profit, but the point of diminishing returns starts to rear it's head pretty fast. People just don't need to upgrade their computers, they work well enough, and there's nothing compelling to spend money on, that can't be done by current computers. Well unless you really, really, really need 64-bit facebook, email, web browsers, & ms-office.
+1 and welcome to the boards mikeybistro.
Apple is smart to start trying to capture the mobile phone and media content business because simply selling boxes and shrinkwrap software isn't going to yield massive profits. You really do have to sell the ecosystem. To date no one has been able to show they can make money on SAAS (Software As A Service) so I have my doubts that MobileMe will ever be that big with much of Googles stuff being free.
It's going to be interesting to see who's still standing in 5 years because I think we're seeing the beginning of a computing shakeout.
They've already announced the free upgrade plan- buy a Vista PC after July 1, and you'll get Windows 7 for free.
As for pricing, Microsoft's retail prices have always been absurd, but their OEM prices can be very low- I think they charge $5 for the version of XP Home that goes on netbooks now. Nobody buys Windows at retail, anyway.
I hope all Mac users know to buy OEM version from Egghead at almost 50% less than retail for their Parallels and VMware. Ironic that Mac users are probably buying more stand alone Windows packs than PC users ever did. PC users get Windows on the Machine they buy and dump the box for a new one when the OS is beyond their ability to fix the software.
I've read much of this information in other articles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
It says that processor shipments are down big time and makes it sound like the failure of Windows is at fault when it's rather obvious that the current recession has something to do with it. It then compares that downtrend to Apple (which is doing great), but doesn't Apple use these same processors? That makes no sense to me.
PC sales are already down because of the recession, add to that netobook's are hurting sales in other ways.
Netbooks are hurting Microsoft because netbooks are being sold with Linux at a higher rate than with other computer form factors.
Netbooks are hurting Intel because they are eroding more expensive PC notebook sales, where Intel sells more expensive chips.
Netbooks are hurting OEM's because they are eroding more expensive PC notebook sales.
Quote:
It goes on to talk about how one component of Apple's success is it's "refusal to sell netbooks" but this isn't really so.
Because Apple is not dependent on Windows, Apple is not forced to jump into a trend and price race with the PC OEM's. Apple can sit back and wait and see how it all works out without risking profitability.
Quote:
Then the article segue's into the iPhone story as yet another reason why Apple is doing good and "resisting the netbook" with a low end entry of it's own, but the product is only "low end" because of the subsidies. The "coup" here is the fact that they have somehow developed a brand new computer platform that someone else will pay half the cost of, just to distribute for them. I mean, this is terribly smart of Apple to do this, but really it's another indication of the fact that they really *can't* compete on the low end. They are a luxury product maker that is surviving because they have huge margins on expensive merchandise. The article basically admits this in it's last section about "Macs moving upscale."
70% Netbooks are sold in Europe. The reason for this is because they are being subsidized for 3G data service just like a phone. That is the reason netbook is being compared with the iPhone.
On top of that the fact that smartphones sold 190 million units in 2008, to the 11 million units of netbooks.
Prince is spinning this as if Apple will be unaffected. But I have my doubts.
He's spinning it? How so? Why don't you provide some details as to how and where his arguments are overly subjective? If you don't back up your assertion then you're not contributing anything significant to the discussion.
I think it is a mistake on Apple's part, but it's their business.
Netbooks are not a fad and cheap computers are going to get cheaper. I hate to sound all "640k is enough for anybody," but we've reached a point where increasing computer power benefits a decreasing number of users.
Sure, there's a large class of users that email and surf the web. At most they will want to watch tv and movies and Ion should manage that without dropped frames.
But there's also a large class of users where an Ion probably isn't quite enough.
Quote:
Apple is now the third company missing the trend big-time. Apple's focus is on making money through margins rather than volume, and that works when people can afford luxury computers. They're betting on this recession or depression or whatever it is ending soon. If that doesn't happen, Apple's computer business will be in deep trouble. Maybe then we'll see how cheap they're willing to sell a Mac.
There will always be rich people. In any case, their business model is working better than for MS and Intel.
Quote:
Nothing I've seen since I wrote that has changed my opinions.
Yes, because the grand success that MS and Intel are enjoying with the netbook indicates that Apple should dump profitability and join that bandwagon. Apple has never been a commodity maker.
Frankly, it doesn't hurt Intel as badly as folk make it out to be. They have the high end performance market and the low end market squeezing AMD in the middle. Even ARM has issues because as low price as the Atom is the ARM products are cheaper. Yes, it hurts profitability but it sure hurts their competitors more.
In some ways you can claim that Intel has captured the "high ASP/high margin" segment of the low power netbook market by invading that space before ARM grew performance into that space. We'll see in 2009 how well new ARM netbooks do in the marketplace and if a $200 low performing ARM netbook trumps a $400 Atom based netbook. They better get flash working first though...they say 3rd qtr 09.
As I've already said, modern PC games don't use more than 2.5-3GB. Anything above that is wasted for games.
Is that really because the games simply don't need more than 3GB, or because 32-bit software is literally unable to address more than 3GB? The game designers are restricted and have to fit within that container, and have been for some time.
Keep in mind that a 64-bit compilation of a game will be using the same design as the 32-bit version, and that design is meant to run acceptably within that 3GB limit. So a 64-bit game using only 2.5-3GB of RAM is not evidence that 64-bit is not needed.
Show me a game that was designed from the ground up for a 64-bit system, and I'll show you a game that will use more than 3GB of RAM.
Microsoft has really dropped the ball in not pushing 64-bit to the mainstream - it looks like Windows 7 still will not be there, as the 32-bit version will likely be used more frequently for compatibility.
Snow Leopard will be the first mainstream 64-bit OS, but Apple still doesn't seem to care about the (non-mobile) game space.
I don't really disagree with most of what's being said here, but this article strikes me as a rambling bit of confusing Apple promotion that doesn't have much to do with it's title. All that's really happening here is the recession, and Apple is surviving because they are the BMW of computers. Big, rich and catering to the segment of the market that's not feeling the recessions' pinch as much. Without separating out the effects of the recession, I think all the talk about Apple's value proposition (especially on products yet to be released), is really just fluffy speculation.
You kind of gloss over the simple fact that Apple also make an OS that works very well and is a pleasure to use. Plus I disagree with your generalization about Mac users being in Bush's 1%. I know tons of friends with Macs that are hurting like hell in this economy. Intelligent buying decisions take into account not just upfront costs but the longer term costs. One friend of mine with his $400 Acer laptop is already $400 in the hole for tech help to get it running that failed, he still had to pay. I fixed it for him for free - his Kaspersky had blocked IE from connecting to the internet after an automatic update went badly wrong. It's crap like that happening all day and everyday for PC users that make Apple a better buy even if they cost a bit more up front, even for the financially strapped.
Netbooks are hurting Microsoft because netbooks are being sold with Linux at a higher rate than with other computer form factors.
True, and Linux I guess can be made okay for home use. To some degree anyway. The rate of return is higher and frankly, there are a lot of things that folks will find that they simply can't do in Linux without jumping through significant hoops.
OpenOffice != Office
GnuCash != Quicken
No TurboTax or TaxCut on Linux
These are common home programs that work just fine on a netbook running XP. And no, Wine isn't a viable alternative for the masses.
Linux is pretty much the wrong answer for netbooks (US market) except for geeks.
He's spinning it? How so? Why don't you provide some details as to how and where his arguments are overly subjective? If you don't back up your assertion then you're not contributing anything significant to the discussion.
He's saying Apple are unaffected by netbook sales.
I think its a bit premature to declare this. I understand Apple's sales held up well in the most recent quarter but lets see how they do this quarter.
The Apple stores I've visited recently haven't seemed nearly as busy as they used to be.
I recently bought a MacBook Pro. When I was looking for a new Mac, I was trying to decide between an iMac and a MacBook Pro. I'm a big fan of desktops because I didn't really need the portability and wanted more computing power for my buck.
However, Apple's slowness in updating the iMac (as well as the fact that I'll be more mobile, and the fact that I can take the MacBook Pro apart to upgrade it) was really the tipping point for me getting a MacBook Pro. Granted, now that I have a notebook, I'm enjoying the freedom that comes with it. I can watch TV and surf at the same time Now I just need to find a way to wireless sync with my external hard drive to do Time Machine backups and I'll be all set.
However, I really sense now that Apple has shifted its focus away from desktops, which aren't selling nearly as well, to notebooks the iPhone/iPod touch. Once Apple starts selling docking stations for their notebooks (as opposed to just the cinema displays) then that might be the beginning of the end for their desktop lines (maybe not the Mac Pro, though).
Comments
AMD plans to steer clear of profit-squeezing netbook chips
If the iPhone had Flash, the video playback would still likely be variable. The video would still have to be of limited size and data rate. Flash video formats are completely different sizes from website to website.
PS: My iPhone would be just fine as a replacement for my Netbook if I could watch streaming TV from the networks on it. This means an App Store approved portal or Flash on iPhone OS X.
that's like saying Apple should be scared because Macbook/Macbook Pros are outselling their desktops.
Some major game titles ship 64-bit binaries (just Google it)... Does not necessarily give a performance boost, maybe a slight boost.
None of these 64-bit games are shipping on physical media. They're glorified tech demoes than require the gamer to download the binaries from the internet and are virtually unsupported. Walk into a games store and none of the games on the shelf will be 64-bit.
Running 64-bit Windows is useful as a previous poster mentioned because you can access more than 3GB of RAM. If I have 4GB of RAM (which is very cheap nowadays) any 32bit OS is wasting my RAM.
As I've already said, modern PC games don't use more than 2.5-3GB. Anything above that is wasted for games. RAM quality is much more important. 3GB of DDR3 will outperform 6GB of DDR2 in Crysis benchmarks. Modern graphics cards use DDR5 and even 512MB of it is ample for most monitor resolutions.
For general use, more RAM is better. For gaming, anything above 3GB is currently a waste.
With Joost and iPlayer apps available, we know Apple has nothing against approving video streaming apps. Slingplayer is soon to come. I've seen requests for iPhone apps on Hulu.com and TV.com community boards. With the meteoric growth of mobile devices, I believe they are both working on it.
If the iPhone had Flash, the video playback would still likely be variable. The video would still have to be of limited size and data rate. Flash video formats are completely different sizes from website to website.
I'll have to check out those players, especially if iPlayer will get me Top Gear.
I really don't think Flash is the answer, merely an answer. I had to by a netbook recently. I bought a Acer Aspire One at Walmart for $300. it barely plays Hulu vids at 360p and can't smoothly play Hulu's higher0def 480p vids. Quite sad, though this should change when better GPUs arrive.
It says that processor shipments are down big time and makes it sound like the failure of Windows is at fault when it's rather obvious that the current recession has something to do with it. It then compares that downtrend to Apple (which is doing great), but doesn't Apple use these same processors? That makes no sense to me.
It goes on to talk about how one component of Apple's success is it's "refusal to sell netbooks" but this isn't really so. Apple's so called refusal to sell netbooks is really because they require a healthy margin on everything they make. It's those fatter margins on all their products that's protecting them from the recession. It's also the fact that they cater to the wealthy end of the market and don't focus on the average consumer. But then it doesn't sound so angelic when you put it that way does it?
Then the article segue's into the iPhone story as yet another reason why Apple is doing good and "resisting the netbook" with a low end entry of it's own, but the product is only "low end" because of the subsidies. The "coup" here is the fact that they have somehow developed a brand new computer platform that someone else will pay half the cost of, just to distribute for them. I mean, this is terribly smart of Apple to do this, but really it's another indication of the fact that they really *can't* compete on the low end. They are a luxury product maker that is surviving because they have huge margins on expensive merchandise. The article basically admits this in it's last section about "Macs moving upscale."
While I was happy to read the details on the poor adoption of 64 bit Windows, mixing in all that stuff at the end about how Apple is differentiating their product with faster 64 bit software and so on kind of sounds like empty promotion to me and the whole article is peppered with the same sort of stuff really. The figures quoted for windows high-end gamers would seem to indicate that the consumer doesn't care at the moment about 64 bit computing. In this sense, if Apple succeeds in changing that perception with Snow Leopard, then it's really just another marketing success isn't it? Not so much a technological triumph.
I don't really disagree with most of what's being said here, but this article strikes me as a rambling bit of confusing Apple promotion that doesn't have much to do with it's title. All that's really happening here is the recession, and Apple is surviving because they are the BMW of computers. Big, rich and catering to the segment of the market that's not feeling the recessions' pinch as much. Without separating out the effects of the recession, I think all the talk about Apple's value proposition (especially on products yet to be released), is really just fluffy speculation.
"Analysts say that Intel would have to sell three times as many processors for the netbook market to make the same profit it does on the sale of a single laptop processor."
AMD plans to steer clear of profit-squeezing netbook chips
I think Intel hoped that Atom would go into hand held devices and smart phones. In the future who knows?
But now the horse is out of the barn and its going to be difficult to get it back in.
But how does that benefit the average user who browses the web and checks their email? It doesn't. And that's what netbooks are used for.
Because it answers this question not yours:
"Why would gamers benefit the most from a 64-bit OS? Not a single mainstream PC game ships with 64-bit binaries on the disc. It's a chicken and egg situation."
Did you even read the context?
It goes on to talk about how one component of Apple's success is it's "refusal to sell netbooks" but this isn't really so. Apple's so called refusal to sell netbooks is really because they require a healthy margin on everything they make.
Yes, that is the point. Apple insulated itself from cannibalization by not offering an alternative to its high margin products. Therefore no netbook and no xMac has contributed to Apple's continued profitability because OSX is a competitive advantage over cheaper windows or linux based netbooks and towers. Something that Vista based notebooks and towers don't enjoy.
I think this is an ominous sign for Apple.
Prince is spinning this as if Apple will be unaffected. But I have my doubts.
He's spinning it? How so? Why don't you provide some details as to how and where his arguments are overly subjective? If you don't back up your assertion then you're not contributing anything significant to the discussion.
I think the computer world is all just way past the point of diminishing returns. The majority of computer users just don't need to upgrade to anything. And none of the offerings by any of the manufacturers prove otherwise.
As a video editor and part time gamer, I feel like I'm one of the last people who actually cares about eeking out a little more performance out of my systems. But even then, any extra performance that I can get by upgrading my hardware or software is miniscule compared to what my systems already do! They run everything well enough.
It's no wonder Apple is shifting focus to the iPods/iPhones. At least there you have a significant growth market with a large potential for "virgin" users. In comparison, going after "computer platfom converts" might net a little profit, but the point of diminishing returns starts to rear it's head pretty fast. People just don't need to upgrade their computers, they work well enough, and there's nothing compelling to spend money on, that can't be done by current computers. Well unless you really, really, really need 64-bit facebook, email, web browsers, & ms-office.
+1 and welcome to the boards mikeybistro.
Apple is smart to start trying to capture the mobile phone and media content business because simply selling boxes and shrinkwrap software isn't going to yield massive profits. You really do have to sell the ecosystem. To date no one has been able to show they can make money on SAAS (Software As A Service) so I have my doubts that MobileMe will ever be that big with much of Googles stuff being free.
It's going to be interesting to see who's still standing in 5 years because I think we're seeing the beginning of a computing shakeout.
They've already announced the free upgrade plan- buy a Vista PC after July 1, and you'll get Windows 7 for free.
As for pricing, Microsoft's retail prices have always been absurd, but their OEM prices can be very low- I think they charge $5 for the version of XP Home that goes on netbooks now. Nobody buys Windows at retail, anyway.
I hope all Mac users know to buy OEM version from Egghead at almost 50% less than retail for their Parallels and VMware. Ironic that Mac users are probably buying more stand alone Windows packs than PC users ever did. PC users get Windows on the Machine they buy and dump the box for a new one when the OS is beyond their ability to fix the software.
It says that processor shipments are down big time and makes it sound like the failure of Windows is at fault when it's rather obvious that the current recession has something to do with it. It then compares that downtrend to Apple (which is doing great), but doesn't Apple use these same processors? That makes no sense to me.
PC sales are already down because of the recession, add to that netobook's are hurting sales in other ways.
Netbooks are hurting Microsoft because netbooks are being sold with Linux at a higher rate than with other computer form factors.
Netbooks are hurting Intel because they are eroding more expensive PC notebook sales, where Intel sells more expensive chips.
Netbooks are hurting OEM's because they are eroding more expensive PC notebook sales.
It goes on to talk about how one component of Apple's success is it's "refusal to sell netbooks" but this isn't really so.
Because Apple is not dependent on Windows, Apple is not forced to jump into a trend and price race with the PC OEM's. Apple can sit back and wait and see how it all works out without risking profitability.
Then the article segue's into the iPhone story as yet another reason why Apple is doing good and "resisting the netbook" with a low end entry of it's own, but the product is only "low end" because of the subsidies. The "coup" here is the fact that they have somehow developed a brand new computer platform that someone else will pay half the cost of, just to distribute for them. I mean, this is terribly smart of Apple to do this, but really it's another indication of the fact that they really *can't* compete on the low end. They are a luxury product maker that is surviving because they have huge margins on expensive merchandise. The article basically admits this in it's last section about "Macs moving upscale."
70% Netbooks are sold in Europe. The reason for this is because they are being subsidized for 3G data service just like a phone. That is the reason netbook is being compared with the iPhone.
On top of that the fact that smartphones sold 190 million units in 2008, to the 11 million units of netbooks.
I think this is an ominous sign for Apple.
Prince is spinning this as if Apple will be unaffected. But I have my doubts.
He's spinning it? How so? Why don't you provide some details as to how and where his arguments are overly subjective? If you don't back up your assertion then you're not contributing anything significant to the discussion.
I think it is a mistake on Apple's part, but it's their business.
Netbooks are not a fad and cheap computers are going to get cheaper. I hate to sound all "640k is enough for anybody," but we've reached a point where increasing computer power benefits a decreasing number of users.
Sure, there's a large class of users that email and surf the web. At most they will want to watch tv and movies and Ion should manage that without dropped frames.
But there's also a large class of users where an Ion probably isn't quite enough.
Apple is now the third company missing the trend big-time. Apple's focus is on making money through margins rather than volume, and that works when people can afford luxury computers. They're betting on this recession or depression or whatever it is ending soon. If that doesn't happen, Apple's computer business will be in deep trouble. Maybe then we'll see how cheap they're willing to sell a Mac.
There will always be rich people. In any case, their business model is working better than for MS and Intel.
Nothing I've seen since I wrote that has changed my opinions.
Yes, because the grand success that MS and Intel are enjoying with the netbook indicates that Apple should dump profitability and join that bandwagon. Apple has never been a commodity maker.
Frankly, it doesn't hurt Intel as badly as folk make it out to be. They have the high end performance market and the low end market squeezing AMD in the middle. Even ARM has issues because as low price as the Atom is the ARM products are cheaper. Yes, it hurts profitability but it sure hurts their competitors more.
In some ways you can claim that Intel has captured the "high ASP/high margin" segment of the low power netbook market by invading that space before ARM grew performance into that space. We'll see in 2009 how well new ARM netbooks do in the marketplace and if a $200 low performing ARM netbook trumps a $400 Atom based netbook. They better get flash working first though...they say 3rd qtr 09.
As I've already said, modern PC games don't use more than 2.5-3GB. Anything above that is wasted for games.
Is that really because the games simply don't need more than 3GB, or because 32-bit software is literally unable to address more than 3GB? The game designers are restricted and have to fit within that container, and have been for some time.
Keep in mind that a 64-bit compilation of a game will be using the same design as the 32-bit version, and that design is meant to run acceptably within that 3GB limit. So a 64-bit game using only 2.5-3GB of RAM is not evidence that 64-bit is not needed.
Show me a game that was designed from the ground up for a 64-bit system, and I'll show you a game that will use more than 3GB of RAM.
Microsoft has really dropped the ball in not pushing 64-bit to the mainstream - it looks like Windows 7 still will not be there, as the 32-bit version will likely be used more frequently for compatibility.
Snow Leopard will be the first mainstream 64-bit OS, but Apple still doesn't seem to care about the (non-mobile) game space.
Partial quote ...
I don't really disagree with most of what's being said here, but this article strikes me as a rambling bit of confusing Apple promotion that doesn't have much to do with it's title. All that's really happening here is the recession, and Apple is surviving because they are the BMW of computers. Big, rich and catering to the segment of the market that's not feeling the recessions' pinch as much. Without separating out the effects of the recession, I think all the talk about Apple's value proposition (especially on products yet to be released), is really just fluffy speculation.
You kind of gloss over the simple fact that Apple also make an OS that works very well and is a pleasure to use. Plus I disagree with your generalization about Mac users being in Bush's 1%. I know tons of friends with Macs that are hurting like hell in this economy. Intelligent buying decisions take into account not just upfront costs but the longer term costs. One friend of mine with his $400 Acer laptop is already $400 in the hole for tech help to get it running that failed, he still had to pay. I fixed it for him for free - his Kaspersky had blocked IE from connecting to the internet after an automatic update went badly wrong. It's crap like that happening all day and everyday for PC users that make Apple a better buy even if they cost a bit more up front, even for the financially strapped.
Netbooks are hurting Microsoft because netbooks are being sold with Linux at a higher rate than with other computer form factors.
True, and Linux I guess can be made okay for home use. To some degree anyway. The rate of return is higher and frankly, there are a lot of things that folks will find that they simply can't do in Linux without jumping through significant hoops.
OpenOffice != Office
GnuCash != Quicken
No TurboTax or TaxCut on Linux
These are common home programs that work just fine on a netbook running XP. And no, Wine isn't a viable alternative for the masses.
Linux is pretty much the wrong answer for netbooks (US market) except for geeks.
He's spinning it? How so? Why don't you provide some details as to how and where his arguments are overly subjective? If you don't back up your assertion then you're not contributing anything significant to the discussion.
He's saying Apple are unaffected by netbook sales.
I think its a bit premature to declare this. I understand Apple's sales held up well in the most recent quarter but lets see how they do this quarter.
The Apple stores I've visited recently haven't seemed nearly as busy as they used to be.
However, Apple's slowness in updating the iMac (as well as the fact that I'll be more mobile, and the fact that I can take the MacBook Pro apart to upgrade it) was really the tipping point for me getting a MacBook Pro. Granted, now that I have a notebook, I'm enjoying the freedom that comes with it. I can watch TV and surf at the same time
However, I really sense now that Apple has shifted its focus away from desktops, which aren't selling nearly as well, to notebooks the iPhone/iPod touch. Once Apple starts selling docking stations for their notebooks (as opposed to just the cinema displays) then that might be the beginning of the end for their desktop lines (maybe not the Mac Pro, though).