The performance differences you would see in every day tasks would mostly come from being able to multitask. You would certainly see a difference in such tasks as rendering images, compressing video files, or viewing a HD movie without dropping frames.
With the exception of viewing HD movies (and my netbook does 720p video fine already), how many people that buy ultra portables do you really think do all of that? My netbook has no problems running several applications at once, especially now that it has 2GB of RAM. The Air was billed as a second computer, one that people use on the road because they have a more powerful one at home. Again, how does a netbook of similar size at half the cost not apply?
I keep reading arguments why people want a Mac netbook.
Sure, I want a $499 Mac notebook too! Count me in!
But why should Apple release one?
I've gotta say, I have a new MacBook with the back lit keyboard and multitouch and REALLY LOVE it.
That being said, I see the $1,500 sitting there that I mostly use for just Firefox and Poker Stars.
I could easily do the same with a cheaper laptop, but again, I really love OS X and the MacBook.
Tomorrow, I'm actually going shopping for either a cheap ($499) XP laptop, or maybe even an MSI Wind. This is revenue that Apple could have made.
I agree with the thought that Apple would say, so what? It's only $50 profit, but when these little guys are flying off the shelves, they would open the Apple world to many new potential customers (upgraders).
So, tomorrow, if I find an MSI Wind, my MacBook is going on eBay (100% flawless by the way).
I'll put OS X on the Wind for both fun and for the OS X usability. I'll miss the multitouch, but I will enjoy the $1,000+ back in my account!
Then, of course, one day later, Apple will announce a netbook.........
I think people will grow to use ultra-portables for whatever they can do. People will play games and watch HD video if the machine is capable of accomplishing these tasks. I didn't say netbooks cannot multitask, but with more system resources multitasking is snappier and faster. You can never have too much snappiness and speed.
I don't completely understand your question about a netbook of similar size and cost applying to the MacBook Air. I've never said netbooks were not useful, I've only said you are getting better performance with the higher cost of the Air. How useful that is to people will be determined by sales.
From what I understand most of you are arguing that netbooks offer good enough performance at an extremely low cost. I'm sure that is of value for some people. But if this was of primary importance to the majority of the computer market their wouldn't be much of a $1000+ notebook market.
Since notebooks are quickly becoming the primary machine for most people. I would say portables with excellent performance are extremely important. Software only continues to be more demanding of hardware not less.
This is from a benchmark review of the Eee PC 1000H.
"For the most part, the results confirmed what could already be reasonably predicted: the Intel Atom platform cannot keep up with a mobile Core 2 Duo in terms of benchmark performance. Whether or not this performance difference will be noticeable in the real world really depends on what you plan to do with this notebook. If you plan to run CPU intensive applications or modern games, you will definitely want to look elsewhere, and in fact, outside the netbook class entirely. If, however, all you want to do is browse the Internet, take notes, and watch a few videos, chances are you won't miss the extra power at all."
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter
With the exception of viewing HD movies (and my netbook does 720p video fine already), how many people that buy ultra portables do you really think do all of that? My netbook has no problems running several applications at once, especially now that it has 2GB of RAM. The Air was billed as a second computer, one that people use on the road because they have a more powerful one at home. Again, how does a netbook of similar size at half the cost not apply?
Since notebooks are quickly becoming the primary machine for most people. I would say portables with excellent performance are extremely important. Software only continues to be more demanding of hardware not less.
And I would agree if we were talking about the Macbook or the Macbook Pro, but the Air was not designed to be used as a primary machine. My point is that if you are going to have a secondary machine that you plan on using primarily for light tasks (which is what the Air was designed for), why spend two to three times more than you have to?
Benchmark tests show performance wise, the Air is on par with the lowest MacBook. From a technical standpoint the Air could be used as a primary machine. Together with the Apple LED Cinema Display it can act as a desktop and ultra-portable.
It can also be looked at from a total cost of ownership. Because of its performance advantage the Air will be usable for a longer number of years than a netbook. The Air will retain a good resale value longer than a netbook.
But this certainly all depends on the needs of the individual and what they find most valuable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter
And I would agree if we were talking about the Macbook or the Macbook Pro, but the Air was not designed to be used as a primary machine. My point is that if you are going to have a secondary machine that you plan on using primarily for light tasks (which is what the Air was designed for), why spend two to three times more than you have to?
I think people will grow to use ultra-portables for whatever they can do. People will play games and watch HD video if the machine is capable of accomplishing these tasks. I didn't say netbooks cannot multitask, but with more system resources multitasking is snappier and faster. You can never have too much snappiness and speed.
I don't completely understand your question about a netbook of similar size and cost applying to the MacBook Air. I've never said netbooks were not useful, I've only said you are getting better performance with the higher cost of the Air. How useful that is to people will be determined by sales.
From what I understand most of you are arguing that netbooks offer good enough performance at an extremely low cost. I'm sure that is of value for some people. But if this was of primary importance to the majority of the computer market their wouldn't be much of a $1000+ notebook market.
Since notebooks are quickly becoming the primary machine for most people. I would say portables with excellent performance are extremely important. Software only continues to be more demanding of hardware not less.
This is from a benchmark review of the Eee PC 1000H.
"For the most part, the results confirmed what could already be reasonably predicted: the Intel Atom platform cannot keep up with a mobile Core 2 Duo in terms of benchmark performance. Whether or not this performance difference will be noticeable in the real world really depends on what you plan to do with this notebook. If you plan to run CPU intensive applications or modern games, you will definitely want to look elsewhere, and in fact, outside the netbook class entirely. If, however, all you want to do is browse the Internet, take notes, and watch a few videos, chances are you won't miss the extra power at all."
I've never once run into a web browser or office suite, today, that I couldn't be running with the same Athlon XP 1800+, 1.5 GHz single-core PC I had back in 2002. Given about a gig of RAM and a 1 to 2 GHz CPU, most SW is simply just not that demanding, and most of the CPU cycles will just sit idle.
Certain apps have gotten more bloated, and OS' have added more features, but if all I'm doing is spending most of my time in a web browser, it really makes no difference of its cost or the OS, as long as it meets certain requirements, but it just doesn't take a lot to do that anymore.
My netbook weighs less, has more ports, a bigger, faster HD, smaller footprint, also uses an LED LCD, has a swappable battery, and costs less than a 1/4 of a MBA. Granted, it has a smaller, lower res screen, small trackpad, slower CPU, thicker, and doesn't have an Apple logo, but I've never once though, that gee, I wish I had a C2D in it, for what it's intended purpose is, as it would be a complete waste, 99% of the time.
And for the record, this netbook is my 4th current computer (a PC tower, a Mac Mini, and PC laptop), but has replaced my laptop on any trips I take. Netbooks aren't primary computers for most, and neither is the MBA.
If yes, then Apple should go for a $499 netbook. If not, then prices would have to be raised.
At $599 (a $250 profit for Apple) they need to sell an extra 276,000 netbooks for a total of 2,072mio notebooks, an increase of 15.2% in sales.
At $699 (a $350 profit for Apple) an extra 111,000 netbooks for a total of 1.907mio notebooks, an increase in 6.2%.
That latter figure is probably realistic and doable. But at $699 a Mac netbook is not all that exciting...
Compared to a $999 entry point, I think a $699 Mac portable would appeal to a lot of people. The lowest priced netbooks usually include Linux, which is free OS and likely won't have the same build quality as Apple's - I know their build quality is far from perfect but it's still pretty good. Add in prolonged battery life, multi-touch gestures and the premium is worth it.
But then it's like what you're saying, the elevated price point takes away some of the benefits of the disposability plus they will be compared directly to full blown PCs at that price.
I do think they are missing out on a lot of sales though. I know a lot of people who have bought PC laptops because their maximum price point is £400. Apple's entry point of £700 doesn't even come close. Apple may not care of course but if those people get PC laptops, they are more likely to get PC desktops, Windows mobiles, Windows software and share Windows software with people to whom they will recommend Windows and PC stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenobell
From what I understand most of you are arguing that netbooks offer good enough performance at an extremely low cost. I'm sure that is of value for some people. But if this was of primary importance to the majority of the computer market their wouldn't be much of a $1000+ notebook market.
Netbooks have only just started to take off. The screen size will certainly affect purchases but someone will eventually put netbook hardware into a 13-15" model if they haven't already. The current dual core Atom could easily fit a full size laptop and it could be very thin.
October 2007 was when the first EeePC launched so the market only really began 16 months ago. It's very early days and the first models were not really all that powerful. The netbooks only really started to be worthwhile with the 1.6GHz Atom introduced in March/April last year so less than 12 months ago.
When there are 13" netbooks with dual core Atom, 2GB Ram, 80GB SSD and Nvidia graphics, the $1000+ laptop market will start to drain rapidly.
When there are 13" netbooks with dual core Atom, 2GB Ram, 80GB SSD and Nvidia graphics, the $1000+ laptop market will start to drain rapidly.
At that point, the only real difference between a netbook and an entry-level notebook is the CPU and maybe a smaller drive. How much build cost difference can that account for?
When there are 13" netbooks with dual core Atom, 2GB Ram, 80GB SSD and Nvidia graphics, the $1000+ laptop market will start to drain rapidly.
I agree. We've come to the point where 95% of users will be satisfied with a low cost laptop. I can't see many people spending more than $500-600, even for the higher end, after this year. The EeePC got something started and I don't think it can be stopped.
After you've used an Atom netbook, you realize it can do all the stuff you need to do with it. Few people need more unless their portable is their only computer. A bigger screen is all the netbook needs.
Apple made a good move in October dropping the price on the low end MacBook to $999. I think they're going to have to go further. I've owned five Mac portables but doubt I will again unless the prices come down.
A real Mac netbook breakthrough could be possible if Apple were to use ARM Cortex CPUs. We're talking operating days on a single battery charge, not hours, while providing similar (and soon better) performance than Atom chip with a quad-core A9 scheduled for beginning of 2010.
What's needed?
1.) New flavor of Mac OS X
We agree that ideally an Apple netbook should be a Mac and not a resized iPod touch. So what if Apple were to offer a new build of Mac OS X for Cortex A8?
OS X is capable of handling multi-binaries, currently PPC and Intel. A simple extra compile flag and a Cortex A8 binary would be added. In an ideal world all that's needed is a recompile of existing applications.
2.) Which applications are 'Mac OS X ARM' capable?
That's where the new Mac AppStore comes in. Available initially only on those ARM based Mac laptops and offering users a quick way of finding Mac applications capable of running on the ARM chip.
3.) CPU Extras
That ARM chip could effectively replace Intel processors for all lower-end Macs.
Intel won't be happy, but Apple will as it can build its own extras into that chip, thanks to PA Semi, speeding up those areas where the low-power chips currently lack: compression/decomression, multimedia etc.
As long as programmers just use Apple's CORE libraries their applications should compile fine for these chips.
In effect Apple can build a Mac CPU that not only runs energy efficient but also can fully replace low to mid-level Intel CPUs in most applications. And run circles around other Atom based netbooks.
And we could see new hardware technologies added much quicker and more efficiently.
4.) Timeline
WWDC would be the best place to introduce the new flavour of Mac OS X. The new Mac 'netbook' would be introduced but available in October/November, giving developers time to adjust their code so apps also build for the ARM CPUs.
And by the time these new netbooks are ready for their first refresh in Feb/March 2010, the quad-core A9 might already be available, which will be used optimally by Snow Leopard (ARM) while still running a day on a single battery charge.
This could work.
And with most controllers (memory, HDDs, etc.) on CPU as well, production costs could be so minimal that a $399 netbook could be doable. $499 with unibody.
This would be a nice shake up.
And finally Apple would have its own CPUs. A long time dream. And no more cloner worries.
So, tomorrow, if I find an MSI Wind, my MacBook is going on eBay (100% flawless by the way).
I'll put OS X on the Wind for both fun and for the OS X usability. I'll miss the multitouch, but I will enjoy the $1,000+ back in my account!
Then, of course, one day later, Apple will announce a netbook.........
I'll update my own posting.
I ended up buying a Dell Mini 9 Inspiron. I really truly do hate to use Windows, BUT, (notice the big BUT), my MacBook was $1,500. All that I use it for is online poker and web browsing - that's all. I bought the Mini 9 for $300. So, for the difference of $1,200 is it worth it to have the MacBook? The jury is still out after only one night.
I REALLY miss the multitouch, but again, for the money, it's probably worth it.
A netbook isn't for everyone, but I'm not everyone. I'm just me. The netbook IS perfect for me. I only need it in a hotel, and sometimes on my lap at home while watching tv.
C'mon Apple. I'm just itching to spend some of my money with you!
Hey, maybe I'll tear apart the Mini 9 and will add a gps and OS X to it!
No, they don't serve the same markets. The fact you keep neglecting is that as netbooks improve notebooks will continue to improve.
By the time netbooks are where you have described, 1920x1200 screens will be common, 3GHz processors, 8GB RAM, 750GB HDD, faster graphics. These machines will continue to far out perform sub-$1000 machines.
I can agree netbooks will erode the sub-$1000 notebook market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
When there are 13" netbooks with dual core Atom, 2GB Ram, 80GB SSD and Nvidia graphics, the $1000+ laptop market will start to drain rapidly.
Notebooks are quickly becoming the primary machine. Because of this $1000+ notebooks have been one of the fastest growing computer segments. People who need performance are not going to settle for a netbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo
I agree. We've come to the point where 95% of users will be satisfied with a low cost laptop. I can't see many people spending more than $500-600, even for the higher end, after this year. The EeePC got something started and I don't think it can be stopped.
To make what you want at the price that you want, is a loosing proposition for Apple.
The same way in the long run netbooks are a loosing proposition for other computer manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMick
A netbook isn't for everyone, but I'm not everyone. I'm just me. The netbook IS perfect for me. I only need it in a hotel, and sometimes on my lap at home while watching tv.
C'mon Apple. I'm just itching to spend some of my money with you!
Interesting read, pretty much agree with hobBit, $299-$499 price point to grab the sales, less a mini macbook more an appliance to protect the notebooks, not too sure though about a whole new platform, how about a shared one?
I was reading today about nVidia's Tegra platform for MIDs, bags of power for handling media and general computing such as, oh I don't know, surfing, mail, chat and basic work apps and all with low power requirements giving extended battery usage. I think its was hmurchison who said in another thread that this sort of Soc should be used in the Apple TV instead of x86, but obviously designed by PASemi.
So here's a crazy idea, an Apple netbook and Apple TV using the same ARM based platform!
Both using a 720p screen (1280*720), both share the same development platform for Apps and games distributed through the iTunes Store, the netbook can use the ATV 10foot interface for media and the ATV could access apps, games, web, mail and chat that some have been calling for.(not too sure about web on a tv!)
Apple gets in on the netbook market with a MID without threatening the laptops and creates an Apps/games ecosystem around ATV, giving it more utility and user appeal.
At that point, the only real difference between a netbook and an entry-level notebook is the CPU and maybe a smaller drive. How much build cost difference can that account for?
I just noticed Dell actually sell a 12" netbook - the Mini 12.
single core 1.6GHz Atom
1GB Ram
Windows XP
80GB 4200 rpm drive
12.1" screen
wifi, bluetoooth, webcam
$599
But they also sell a Vostro:
1.6GHz Core 2 Duo
2GB Ram
Windows Vista
160GB 5400 rpm drive
15.5" screen
wifi, bluetooth, card reader, firewire
$429
The Mini 9 can be bought for $329 with 8GB SSD but add a hard drive and it gets close to the Vostro.
This is possibly why a netbook would have to be limited to certain sizes - Intel have a definition of a 10" screen or less, anything above and Intel charge more for the chips. It's not just the chips either, it will be a similar deal when it comes to mobile vs desktop. The bigger things are, they can use cheaper components.
Volume of sales is probably a factor in this too.
Dell aren't the cheapest though and you do get netbooks with hard drives for a very low price and they would drive a 20" display. The built-in screen doesn't really have to be that big as long as the resolution is enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenobell
The fact you keep neglecting is that as netbooks improve notebooks will continue to improve.
Computational requirements in a lot of areas don't keep increasing. People using laptops instead of desktops for average tasks are more than satisfied by the Core 2 Duo chips. A Core 2 Duo uses about 5% CPU while browsing and maybe 25% if Flash is on. Cut the processing power in half and browsing is still only using half the power available.
My friends who use Macs at work have now bought second hand PC laptops for under £100 for use at home. Their needs don't exceed those of the old 1-1.5GHz Pentium-M chips. They like the Macs and the OS but Windows is good enough and Apple's £700 entry point just isn't worth even considering. For an extra £150, they would have a warranty and batteries that last longer with a netbook.
But I can understand the point that if Apple don't go to netbook prices, they might not make the sale anyway and if they make a cheaper laptop, they still won't sell a netbook CPU compared to full blown machines from the likes of Dell, which are still cheaper.
Maybe they should just lower their prices a bit. An average shopper looking at a Dell or a Mac will see $429 for 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo or $999 for 2GHz Core 2 Duo. The performance difference they will notice will be negligible, the $500 saving isn't.
Right now, it's still not a major issue but when we get quad core mobile chips at the end of this year, are Apple going to wipe out dual core machines and put a quad on the bottom end at the same price? If they do then PC manufacturers will sell dual core machines for even less. If a Core 2 Duo is $429 now, next year it could be £329 or less.
Collectively, the entire industry has to move forward in this way to keep it profitable. They have to keep increasing spec and maintain price points. The netbooks are going to damage that strategy because when one manufacturer jumps, the rest have to follow suit in what people call the race to the bottom. But they can't avoid this forever and the netbooks are showing this up very well.
Intel aren't slowing down chip development, nor are graphics card manufacturers. SSD manufacturers are rushing ahead - OCZ announced another model that rivals the X25-M and possibly half the price due at the end of March in sizes up to 250GB. Netbooks aren't the end of high priced computers but they are a sign that the end is coming pretty soon.
Question: if a 9" 1.6GHz single core netbook costs $250 today, what spec will a $250 netbook have in 2-3 years? As I say, add another core or two, SSD and a bigger screen and why would the majority of end users buy something more than that?
Computational requirements in a lot of areas don't keep increasing. People using laptops instead of desktops for average tasks are more than satisfied by the Core 2 Duo chips. A Core 2 Duo uses about 5% CPU while browsing and maybe 25% if Flash is on. Cut the processing power in half and browsing is still only using half the power available.
Computational requirements do keep increasing, generally most apps will support hardware that is a few years old, but eventually their is a cut off point. Microsoft Office 2008 isn't a particularly intense app but it doesn't officially support the G3 processor.
Quote:
My friends who use Macs at work have now bought second hand PC laptops for under £100 for use at home. Their needs don't exceed those of the old 1-1.5GHz Pentium-M chips. They like the Macs and the OS but Windows is good enough and Apple's £700 entry point just isn't worth even considering. For an extra £150, they would have a warranty and batteries that last longer with a netbook.
I don't see this as a common trend. Most Mac users I know, use Windows at work and use a Mac at home. People who use Mac's at work generally use Mac's at home.
Quote:
Collectively, the entire industry has to move forward in this way to keep it profitable. They have to keep increasing spec and maintain price points. The netbooks are going to damage that strategy because when one manufacturer jumps, the rest have to follow suit in what people call the race to the bottom. But they can't avoid this forever and the netbooks are showing this up very well.
Most of what you describe has been the situation for 10 years. PC makers are battling in the sub-$1000 market driving down prices, while Apple has maintained above the $1000 market. Netbooks don't change this dynamic, netbooks only continue to drive down the costs and profits of PC makers.
Quote:
Question: if a 9" 1.6GHz single core netbook costs $250 today, what spec will a $250 netbook have in 2-3 years? As I say, add another core or two, SSD and a bigger screen and why would the majority of end users buy something more than that?
The same reason why for the past 10 years Dell and HP have offered $500 notebooks, while there is still a healthy and thriving $1000 - $2000 notebook market. For many people and many situations performance is more important than price.
Software development is not stagnant. Software developers are going to design their products to take advantage of the newest OS API's, the newest processor and graphic features. End users will clearly be able to tell when hardware is not able to handle these tasks.
Outside of using demanding software on premium hardware. In everyday practice people are often using multiple numbers of application at one time. The ability to efficiently and productively multitask is dependent on the quality of the hardware.
Notebooks with better performance will be usable for a longer number of years than notebooks that had minimal capability when the were brand new.
Computational requirements do keep increasing, generally most apps will support hardware that is a few years old, but eventually their is a cut off point. Microsoft Office 2008 isn't a particularly intense app but it doesn't officially support the G3 processor.
The G3 is old hardware not new low-end hardware though. Plus the G3 is a very old processor now. Cutting off 10 year old hardware is not really a sign that manufacturers will be able to keep people buying at the same rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The same reason why for the past 10 years Dell and HP have offered $500 notebooks, while there is still a healthy and thriving $1000 - $2000 notebook market. For many people and many situations performance is more important than price.
But in the last 10 years, those laptops weren't good enough vs the higher priced machines. There is a threshold beyond which no matter how much better manufacturers make the high end, a significant majority will deem it too much and opt for the cheaper models. The Mac Pro is a good example - a Mac Pro may be a very powerful machine but a Core 2 Quad is good enough that people who don't want to pay £1400 can pay just £500 and get 90% of the performance and satisfy their performance needs adequately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Software development is not stagnant. Software developers are going to design their products to take advantage of the newest OS API's, the newest processor and graphic features. End users will clearly be able to tell when hardware is not able to handle these tasks.
There is the possibility that developers can move more and more towards interpreted code similar to how the Palm Pre will use Javascript to improve development time but they need to protect intellectual property so I don't see a big shift. They may find ways to tax the hardware further but Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are evidence they are trying to do the opposite. Small footprint, fast code, fast hardware. I'm sure people can imagine all sorts of high end software that could require the highest end machines in a similar way to how consoles develop but consoles highlight this point very well.
The PS3 is arguably the fastest console hardware and yet sells the least. Coming from the back of one of the best selling console in the world - the PS2 - this seems surprising. But contrary to what you have said, developers just can't push the software to a point where the hardware is worth it because the development time takes way too long. Because computers have to have every single behavior accounted for, this level of complexity has to be recreated by solid man hours and that's what will hold back computer growth.
On the subject of the MID, this might indeed be a better direction for Apple to go with than a netbook. This demo of the Nvidia Tegra looks absolutely amazing:
I looked at the device and wondered if that could be the next iphone. Full 1080p output, playing Quake 3 at 720p, 10 hour battery life. The gaming angle could really take off with that setup. With it docked in the laptop shell, it could quite possibly take on netbooks, reach the same price point but even lower power usage. Netbooks still have the advantage of being able to run a full desktop OS but the iphone would cover email, browsing and document editing. Apple just needs to put Textedit on the iphone with better Word support and there's little else that the device would need.
This way at least their product doesn't start to affect sales of the laptops etc and encourages people to use the device for the tasks they were meant for. I don't think it's the ideal answer given that people are quite happily running Leopard on current netbooks but it's a step in the right direction. I could see a fragmentation happen in the Mac developer community though. A lot of devs may shift to targeting the lower power, high volume, low cost platforms and innovative desktop Mac software starts to diminish. We're already seeing this happen with Apple's Pro software and Adobe's software. The monolithic apps stagnate and it's the quirky new small apps like Aperture, Lightroom etc that get the attention.
I'm thinking the Dell Mini 10 will be a nice sweetspot for Netbooks. Small enough to be very portable, large enough not to feel too constrained and a 1,355x768 display that also isn't too short for web browsing.
Comments
The performance differences you would see in every day tasks would mostly come from being able to multitask. You would certainly see a difference in such tasks as rendering images, compressing video files, or viewing a HD movie without dropping frames.
With the exception of viewing HD movies (and my netbook does 720p video fine already), how many people that buy ultra portables do you really think do all of that? My netbook has no problems running several applications at once, especially now that it has 2GB of RAM. The Air was billed as a second computer, one that people use on the road because they have a more powerful one at home. Again, how does a netbook of similar size at half the cost not apply?
I keep reading arguments why people want a Mac netbook.
Sure, I want a $499 Mac notebook too! Count me in!
But why should Apple release one?
I've gotta say, I have a new MacBook with the back lit keyboard and multitouch and REALLY LOVE it.
That being said, I see the $1,500 sitting there that I mostly use for just Firefox and Poker Stars.
I could easily do the same with a cheaper laptop, but again, I really love OS X and the MacBook.
Tomorrow, I'm actually going shopping for either a cheap ($499) XP laptop, or maybe even an MSI Wind. This is revenue that Apple could have made.
I agree with the thought that Apple would say, so what? It's only $50 profit, but when these little guys are flying off the shelves, they would open the Apple world to many new potential customers (upgraders).
So, tomorrow, if I find an MSI Wind, my MacBook is going on eBay (100% flawless by the way).
I'll put OS X on the Wind for both fun and for the OS X usability. I'll miss the multitouch, but I will enjoy the $1,000+ back in my account!
Then, of course, one day later, Apple will announce a netbook.........
I don't completely understand your question about a netbook of similar size and cost applying to the MacBook Air. I've never said netbooks were not useful, I've only said you are getting better performance with the higher cost of the Air. How useful that is to people will be determined by sales.
From what I understand most of you are arguing that netbooks offer good enough performance at an extremely low cost. I'm sure that is of value for some people. But if this was of primary importance to the majority of the computer market their wouldn't be much of a $1000+ notebook market.
Since notebooks are quickly becoming the primary machine for most people. I would say portables with excellent performance are extremely important. Software only continues to be more demanding of hardware not less.
This is from a benchmark review of the Eee PC 1000H.
"For the most part, the results confirmed what could already be reasonably predicted: the Intel Atom platform cannot keep up with a mobile Core 2 Duo in terms of benchmark performance. Whether or not this performance difference will be noticeable in the real world really depends on what you plan to do with this notebook. If you plan to run CPU intensive applications or modern games, you will definitely want to look elsewhere, and in fact, outside the netbook class entirely. If, however, all you want to do is browse the Internet, take notes, and watch a few videos, chances are you won't miss the extra power at all."
With the exception of viewing HD movies (and my netbook does 720p video fine already), how many people that buy ultra portables do you really think do all of that? My netbook has no problems running several applications at once, especially now that it has 2GB of RAM. The Air was billed as a second computer, one that people use on the road because they have a more powerful one at home. Again, how does a netbook of similar size at half the cost not apply?
Since notebooks are quickly becoming the primary machine for most people. I would say portables with excellent performance are extremely important. Software only continues to be more demanding of hardware not less.
And I would agree if we were talking about the Macbook or the Macbook Pro, but the Air was not designed to be used as a primary machine. My point is that if you are going to have a secondary machine that you plan on using primarily for light tasks (which is what the Air was designed for), why spend two to three times more than you have to?
Benchmark tests show performance wise, the Air is on par with the lowest MacBook. From a technical standpoint the Air could be used as a primary machine. Together with the Apple LED Cinema Display it can act as a desktop and ultra-portable.
It can also be looked at from a total cost of ownership. Because of its performance advantage the Air will be usable for a longer number of years than a netbook. The Air will retain a good resale value longer than a netbook.
But this certainly all depends on the needs of the individual and what they find most valuable.
And I would agree if we were talking about the Macbook or the Macbook Pro, but the Air was not designed to be used as a primary machine. My point is that if you are going to have a secondary machine that you plan on using primarily for light tasks (which is what the Air was designed for), why spend two to three times more than you have to?
I think people will grow to use ultra-portables for whatever they can do. People will play games and watch HD video if the machine is capable of accomplishing these tasks. I didn't say netbooks cannot multitask, but with more system resources multitasking is snappier and faster. You can never have too much snappiness and speed.
I don't completely understand your question about a netbook of similar size and cost applying to the MacBook Air. I've never said netbooks were not useful, I've only said you are getting better performance with the higher cost of the Air. How useful that is to people will be determined by sales.
From what I understand most of you are arguing that netbooks offer good enough performance at an extremely low cost. I'm sure that is of value for some people. But if this was of primary importance to the majority of the computer market their wouldn't be much of a $1000+ notebook market.
Since notebooks are quickly becoming the primary machine for most people. I would say portables with excellent performance are extremely important. Software only continues to be more demanding of hardware not less.
This is from a benchmark review of the Eee PC 1000H.
"For the most part, the results confirmed what could already be reasonably predicted: the Intel Atom platform cannot keep up with a mobile Core 2 Duo in terms of benchmark performance. Whether or not this performance difference will be noticeable in the real world really depends on what you plan to do with this notebook. If you plan to run CPU intensive applications or modern games, you will definitely want to look elsewhere, and in fact, outside the netbook class entirely. If, however, all you want to do is browse the Internet, take notes, and watch a few videos, chances are you won't miss the extra power at all."
I've never once run into a web browser or office suite, today, that I couldn't be running with the same Athlon XP 1800+, 1.5 GHz single-core PC I had back in 2002. Given about a gig of RAM and a 1 to 2 GHz CPU, most SW is simply just not that demanding, and most of the CPU cycles will just sit idle.
Certain apps have gotten more bloated, and OS' have added more features, but if all I'm doing is spending most of my time in a web browser, it really makes no difference of its cost or the OS, as long as it meets certain requirements, but it just doesn't take a lot to do that anymore.
My netbook weighs less, has more ports, a bigger, faster HD, smaller footprint, also uses an LED LCD, has a swappable battery, and costs less than a 1/4 of a MBA. Granted, it has a smaller, lower res screen, small trackpad, slower CPU, thicker, and doesn't have an Apple logo, but I've never once though, that gee, I wish I had a C2D in it, for what it's intended purpose is, as it would be a complete waste, 99% of the time.
And for the record, this netbook is my 4th current computer (a PC tower, a Mac Mini, and PC laptop), but has replaced my laptop on any trips I take. Netbooks aren't primary computers for most, and neither is the MBA.
If yes, then Apple should go for a $499 netbook. If not, then prices would have to be raised.
At $599 (a $250 profit for Apple) they need to sell an extra 276,000 netbooks for a total of 2,072mio notebooks, an increase of 15.2% in sales.
At $699 (a $350 profit for Apple) an extra 111,000 netbooks for a total of 1.907mio notebooks, an increase in 6.2%.
That latter figure is probably realistic and doable. But at $699 a Mac netbook is not all that exciting...
Compared to a $999 entry point, I think a $699 Mac portable would appeal to a lot of people. The lowest priced netbooks usually include Linux, which is free OS and likely won't have the same build quality as Apple's - I know their build quality is far from perfect but it's still pretty good. Add in prolonged battery life, multi-touch gestures and the premium is worth it.
But then it's like what you're saying, the elevated price point takes away some of the benefits of the disposability plus they will be compared directly to full blown PCs at that price.
I do think they are missing out on a lot of sales though. I know a lot of people who have bought PC laptops because their maximum price point is £400. Apple's entry point of £700 doesn't even come close. Apple may not care of course but if those people get PC laptops, they are more likely to get PC desktops, Windows mobiles, Windows software and share Windows software with people to whom they will recommend Windows and PC stuff.
From what I understand most of you are arguing that netbooks offer good enough performance at an extremely low cost. I'm sure that is of value for some people. But if this was of primary importance to the majority of the computer market their wouldn't be much of a $1000+ notebook market.
Netbooks have only just started to take off. The screen size will certainly affect purchases but someone will eventually put netbook hardware into a 13-15" model if they haven't already. The current dual core Atom could easily fit a full size laptop and it could be very thin.
October 2007 was when the first EeePC launched so the market only really began 16 months ago. It's very early days and the first models were not really all that powerful. The netbooks only really started to be worthwhile with the 1.6GHz Atom introduced in March/April last year so less than 12 months ago.
When there are 13" netbooks with dual core Atom, 2GB Ram, 80GB SSD and Nvidia graphics, the $1000+ laptop market will start to drain rapidly.
When there are 13" netbooks with dual core Atom, 2GB Ram, 80GB SSD and Nvidia graphics, the $1000+ laptop market will start to drain rapidly.
At that point, the only real difference between a netbook and an entry-level notebook is the CPU and maybe a smaller drive. How much build cost difference can that account for?
When there are 13" netbooks with dual core Atom, 2GB Ram, 80GB SSD and Nvidia graphics, the $1000+ laptop market will start to drain rapidly.
I agree. We've come to the point where 95% of users will be satisfied with a low cost laptop. I can't see many people spending more than $500-600, even for the higher end, after this year. The EeePC got something started and I don't think it can be stopped.
After you've used an Atom netbook, you realize it can do all the stuff you need to do with it. Few people need more unless their portable is their only computer. A bigger screen is all the netbook needs.
Apple made a good move in October dropping the price on the low end MacBook to $999. I think they're going to have to go further. I've owned five Mac portables but doubt I will again unless the prices come down.
A real Mac netbook breakthrough could be possible if Apple were to use ARM Cortex CPUs. We're talking operating days on a single battery charge, not hours, while providing similar (and soon better) performance than Atom chip with a quad-core A9 scheduled for beginning of 2010.
What's needed?
1.) New flavor of Mac OS X
We agree that ideally an Apple netbook should be a Mac and not a resized iPod touch. So what if Apple were to offer a new build of Mac OS X for Cortex A8?
OS X is capable of handling multi-binaries, currently PPC and Intel. A simple extra compile flag and a Cortex A8 binary would be added. In an ideal world all that's needed is a recompile of existing applications.
2.) Which applications are 'Mac OS X ARM' capable?
That's where the new Mac AppStore comes in. Available initially only on those ARM based Mac laptops and offering users a quick way of finding Mac applications capable of running on the ARM chip.
3.) CPU Extras
That ARM chip could effectively replace Intel processors for all lower-end Macs.
Intel won't be happy, but Apple will as it can build its own extras into that chip, thanks to PA Semi, speeding up those areas where the low-power chips currently lack: compression/decomression, multimedia etc.
As long as programmers just use Apple's CORE libraries their applications should compile fine for these chips.
In effect Apple can build a Mac CPU that not only runs energy efficient but also can fully replace low to mid-level Intel CPUs in most applications. And run circles around other Atom based netbooks.
And we could see new hardware technologies added much quicker and more efficiently.
4.) Timeline
WWDC would be the best place to introduce the new flavour of Mac OS X. The new Mac 'netbook' would be introduced but available in October/November, giving developers time to adjust their code so apps also build for the ARM CPUs.
And by the time these new netbooks are ready for their first refresh in Feb/March 2010, the quad-core A9 might already be available, which will be used optimally by Snow Leopard (ARM) while still running a day on a single battery charge.
This could work.
And with most controllers (memory, HDDs, etc.) on CPU as well, production costs could be so minimal that a $399 netbook could be doable. $499 with unibody.
This would be a nice shake up.
And finally Apple would have its own CPUs. A long time dream. And no more cloner worries.
What do you think?
So, tomorrow, if I find an MSI Wind, my MacBook is going on eBay (100% flawless by the way).
I'll put OS X on the Wind for both fun and for the OS X usability. I'll miss the multitouch, but I will enjoy the $1,000+ back in my account!
Then, of course, one day later, Apple will announce a netbook.........
I'll update my own posting.
I ended up buying a Dell Mini 9 Inspiron. I really truly do hate to use Windows, BUT, (notice the big BUT), my MacBook was $1,500. All that I use it for is online poker and web browsing - that's all. I bought the Mini 9 for $300. So, for the difference of $1,200 is it worth it to have the MacBook? The jury is still out after only one night.
I REALLY miss the multitouch, but again, for the money, it's probably worth it.
A netbook isn't for everyone, but I'm not everyone. I'm just me. The netbook IS perfect for me. I only need it in a hotel, and sometimes on my lap at home while watching tv.
C'mon Apple. I'm just itching to spend some of my money with you!
Hey, maybe I'll tear apart the Mini 9 and will add a gps and OS X to it!
By the time netbooks are where you have described, 1920x1200 screens will be common, 3GHz processors, 8GB RAM, 750GB HDD, faster graphics. These machines will continue to far out perform sub-$1000 machines.
I can agree netbooks will erode the sub-$1000 notebook market.
When there are 13" netbooks with dual core Atom, 2GB Ram, 80GB SSD and Nvidia graphics, the $1000+ laptop market will start to drain rapidly.
I agree. We've come to the point where 95% of users will be satisfied with a low cost laptop. I can't see many people spending more than $500-600, even for the higher end, after this year. The EeePC got something started and I don't think it can be stopped.
There's a thought I had: A real Mac netbook breakthrough could be possible if Apple were to use ARM Cortex CPUs. ?
The same way in the long run netbooks are a loosing proposition for other computer manufacturers.
A netbook isn't for everyone, but I'm not everyone. I'm just me. The netbook IS perfect for me. I only need it in a hotel, and sometimes on my lap at home while watching tv.
C'mon Apple. I'm just itching to spend some of my money with you!
Interesting read, pretty much agree with hobBit, $299-$499 price point to grab the sales, less a mini macbook more an appliance to protect the notebooks, not too sure though about a whole new platform, how about a shared one?
I was reading today about nVidia's Tegra platform for MIDs, bags of power for handling media and general computing such as, oh I don't know, surfing, mail, chat and basic work apps and all with low power requirements giving extended battery usage. I think its was hmurchison who said in another thread that this sort of Soc should be used in the Apple TV instead of x86, but obviously designed by PASemi.
So here's a crazy idea, an Apple netbook and Apple TV using the same ARM based platform!
Both using a 720p screen (1280*720), both share the same development platform for Apps and games distributed through the iTunes Store, the netbook can use the ATV 10foot interface for media and the ATV could access apps, games, web, mail and chat that some have been calling for.(not too sure about web on a tv!)
Apple gets in on the netbook market with a MID without threatening the laptops and creates an Apps/games ecosystem around ATV, giving it more utility and user appeal.
At that point, the only real difference between a netbook and an entry-level notebook is the CPU and maybe a smaller drive. How much build cost difference can that account for?
I just noticed Dell actually sell a 12" netbook - the Mini 12.
single core 1.6GHz Atom
1GB Ram
Windows XP
80GB 4200 rpm drive
12.1" screen
wifi, bluetoooth, webcam
$599
But they also sell a Vostro:
1.6GHz Core 2 Duo
2GB Ram
Windows Vista
160GB 5400 rpm drive
15.5" screen
wifi, bluetooth, card reader, firewire
$429
The Mini 9 can be bought for $329 with 8GB SSD but add a hard drive and it gets close to the Vostro.
This is possibly why a netbook would have to be limited to certain sizes - Intel have a definition of a 10" screen or less, anything above and Intel charge more for the chips. It's not just the chips either, it will be a similar deal when it comes to mobile vs desktop. The bigger things are, they can use cheaper components.
Volume of sales is probably a factor in this too.
Dell aren't the cheapest though and you do get netbooks with hard drives for a very low price and they would drive a 20" display. The built-in screen doesn't really have to be that big as long as the resolution is enough.
The fact you keep neglecting is that as netbooks improve notebooks will continue to improve.
Computational requirements in a lot of areas don't keep increasing. People using laptops instead of desktops for average tasks are more than satisfied by the Core 2 Duo chips. A Core 2 Duo uses about 5% CPU while browsing and maybe 25% if Flash is on. Cut the processing power in half and browsing is still only using half the power available.
My friends who use Macs at work have now bought second hand PC laptops for under £100 for use at home. Their needs don't exceed those of the old 1-1.5GHz Pentium-M chips. They like the Macs and the OS but Windows is good enough and Apple's £700 entry point just isn't worth even considering. For an extra £150, they would have a warranty and batteries that last longer with a netbook.
But I can understand the point that if Apple don't go to netbook prices, they might not make the sale anyway and if they make a cheaper laptop, they still won't sell a netbook CPU compared to full blown machines from the likes of Dell, which are still cheaper.
Maybe they should just lower their prices a bit. An average shopper looking at a Dell or a Mac will see $429 for 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo or $999 for 2GHz Core 2 Duo. The performance difference they will notice will be negligible, the $500 saving isn't.
Right now, it's still not a major issue but when we get quad core mobile chips at the end of this year, are Apple going to wipe out dual core machines and put a quad on the bottom end at the same price? If they do then PC manufacturers will sell dual core machines for even less. If a Core 2 Duo is $429 now, next year it could be £329 or less.
Collectively, the entire industry has to move forward in this way to keep it profitable. They have to keep increasing spec and maintain price points. The netbooks are going to damage that strategy because when one manufacturer jumps, the rest have to follow suit in what people call the race to the bottom. But they can't avoid this forever and the netbooks are showing this up very well.
Intel aren't slowing down chip development, nor are graphics card manufacturers. SSD manufacturers are rushing ahead - OCZ announced another model that rivals the X25-M and possibly half the price due at the end of March in sizes up to 250GB. Netbooks aren't the end of high priced computers but they are a sign that the end is coming pretty soon.
Question: if a 9" 1.6GHz single core netbook costs $250 today, what spec will a $250 netbook have in 2-3 years? As I say, add another core or two, SSD and a bigger screen and why would the majority of end users buy something more than that?
Computational requirements in a lot of areas don't keep increasing. People using laptops instead of desktops for average tasks are more than satisfied by the Core 2 Duo chips. A Core 2 Duo uses about 5% CPU while browsing and maybe 25% if Flash is on. Cut the processing power in half and browsing is still only using half the power available.
Computational requirements do keep increasing, generally most apps will support hardware that is a few years old, but eventually their is a cut off point. Microsoft Office 2008 isn't a particularly intense app but it doesn't officially support the G3 processor.
My friends who use Macs at work have now bought second hand PC laptops for under £100 for use at home. Their needs don't exceed those of the old 1-1.5GHz Pentium-M chips. They like the Macs and the OS but Windows is good enough and Apple's £700 entry point just isn't worth even considering. For an extra £150, they would have a warranty and batteries that last longer with a netbook.
I don't see this as a common trend. Most Mac users I know, use Windows at work and use a Mac at home. People who use Mac's at work generally use Mac's at home.
Collectively, the entire industry has to move forward in this way to keep it profitable. They have to keep increasing spec and maintain price points. The netbooks are going to damage that strategy because when one manufacturer jumps, the rest have to follow suit in what people call the race to the bottom. But they can't avoid this forever and the netbooks are showing this up very well.
Most of what you describe has been the situation for 10 years. PC makers are battling in the sub-$1000 market driving down prices, while Apple has maintained above the $1000 market. Netbooks don't change this dynamic, netbooks only continue to drive down the costs and profits of PC makers.
Question: if a 9" 1.6GHz single core netbook costs $250 today, what spec will a $250 netbook have in 2-3 years? As I say, add another core or two, SSD and a bigger screen and why would the majority of end users buy something more than that?
The same reason why for the past 10 years Dell and HP have offered $500 notebooks, while there is still a healthy and thriving $1000 - $2000 notebook market. For many people and many situations performance is more important than price.
Software development is not stagnant. Software developers are going to design their products to take advantage of the newest OS API's, the newest processor and graphic features. End users will clearly be able to tell when hardware is not able to handle these tasks.
Outside of using demanding software on premium hardware. In everyday practice people are often using multiple numbers of application at one time. The ability to efficiently and productively multitask is dependent on the quality of the hardware.
Notebooks with better performance will be usable for a longer number of years than notebooks that had minimal capability when the were brand new.
Computational requirements do keep increasing, generally most apps will support hardware that is a few years old, but eventually their is a cut off point. Microsoft Office 2008 isn't a particularly intense app but it doesn't officially support the G3 processor.
The G3 is old hardware not new low-end hardware though. Plus the G3 is a very old processor now. Cutting off 10 year old hardware is not really a sign that manufacturers will be able to keep people buying at the same rates.
The same reason why for the past 10 years Dell and HP have offered $500 notebooks, while there is still a healthy and thriving $1000 - $2000 notebook market. For many people and many situations performance is more important than price.
But in the last 10 years, those laptops weren't good enough vs the higher priced machines. There is a threshold beyond which no matter how much better manufacturers make the high end, a significant majority will deem it too much and opt for the cheaper models. The Mac Pro is a good example - a Mac Pro may be a very powerful machine but a Core 2 Quad is good enough that people who don't want to pay £1400 can pay just £500 and get 90% of the performance and satisfy their performance needs adequately.
Software development is not stagnant. Software developers are going to design their products to take advantage of the newest OS API's, the newest processor and graphic features. End users will clearly be able to tell when hardware is not able to handle these tasks.
There is the possibility that developers can move more and more towards interpreted code similar to how the Palm Pre will use Javascript to improve development time but they need to protect intellectual property so I don't see a big shift. They may find ways to tax the hardware further but Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are evidence they are trying to do the opposite. Small footprint, fast code, fast hardware. I'm sure people can imagine all sorts of high end software that could require the highest end machines in a similar way to how consoles develop but consoles highlight this point very well.
The PS3 is arguably the fastest console hardware and yet sells the least. Coming from the back of one of the best selling console in the world - the PS2 - this seems surprising. But contrary to what you have said, developers just can't push the software to a point where the hardware is worth it because the development time takes way too long. Because computers have to have every single behavior accounted for, this level of complexity has to be recreated by solid man hours and that's what will hold back computer growth.
On the subject of the MID, this might indeed be a better direction for Apple to go with than a netbook. This demo of the Nvidia Tegra looks absolutely amazing:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/17/n...d-pumping-out/
I looked at the device and wondered if that could be the next iphone. Full 1080p output, playing Quake 3 at 720p, 10 hour battery life. The gaming angle could really take off with that setup. With it docked in the laptop shell, it could quite possibly take on netbooks, reach the same price point but even lower power usage. Netbooks still have the advantage of being able to run a full desktop OS but the iphone would cover email, browsing and document editing. Apple just needs to put Textedit on the iphone with better Word support and there's little else that the device would need.
This way at least their product doesn't start to affect sales of the laptops etc and encourages people to use the device for the tasks they were meant for. I don't think it's the ideal answer given that people are quite happily running Leopard on current netbooks but it's a step in the right direction. I could see a fragmentation happen in the Mac developer community though. A lot of devs may shift to targeting the lower power, high volume, low cost platforms and innovative desktop Mac software starts to diminish. We're already seeing this happen with Apple's Pro software and Adobe's software. The monolithic apps stagnate and it's the quirky new small apps like Aperture, Lightroom etc that get the attention.
As long as the price isn't silly I'm getting one.