[Veltliner]

Interesting article here about the shrinking market for higher priced computers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/te...pend.html?_r=1

I'm sure Apple has something like this in the works.

Or not?

Because it would eat in the MacBook market, which are often bought by light users?

But how much business could be lost by NOT offering a netbook?

[ajprice]

The thing is if they did make a netbook, worthy of having an Apple logo on the case, I think they'd price it more like a Vaio P which Sony keep saying isn't a netbook at all. I can't see them doing something in direct competition to the Eee and similar.

SJ has said

1. That they don't want a smaller than full size keyboard in the MBA launch.
2. They don't know how to make a $500 laptop.

For the keyboard, they could lose some bezel and make it as wide as a full size keyboard like the 12" PB, and make it thin like the Air. But there's not much differentiation there between that and an Air. If they did make a $500 netbook as we know a netbook (ie an Eee or Asus Aspire) it wouldn't be up to Apple's standards as a computer. Their idea of a netbook is the Macbook Air, if they did make a $500 portable I don't think it would be a traditional netbook, it would be something else that they see as equivalent or better.

[OreoCookie]

@ajprice
Regarding 2., that's not quite what SJ said. He said they don't know how to make a good mobile computer at that price point. Namely, the current solutions are too slow and wouldn't `meet Apple's standards' as you (IMO correctly) write later on.

There has been a netbook infestation at university here, and I must admit, before seeing them, they do seem very tempting: light-weight, small, etc. But then I saw them first-hand and I quickly changed my mind: the keyboard is unbearably small (for me, at least) and the resolution and quality of the screen is simply not up to the tasks I have in mind. I wear glasses and I don't want to squint at the display to see something.

@Veltiner
It's common sense to think that Apple has a few prototypes floating around, perhaps some integrate elements of the iPhone's UI with a desktop UI? IMO it's largely a question of UI: of course, you can just load a desktop OS onto that machine, but then people will use it like desktops and find out that it doesn't work all that well (e. g. some MS Office dialogs are simply too large for the limited screen resolution of some netbooks). I think Apple is more cautious and they want to find an application first.

IMO they would probably also use one of the new quad-core ARM chips which is about as powerful as a current high-end Atom but consumes only a tenth of the power (or less in standby). But personally, I don't see a good application for them -- yet.

Although I do have a vision: you have two computers, an iMac-like desktop with `docking station' and a lightweight mobile computer that has been reduced to its essentials. The mobile Mac has only limited cpu power and graphics power, but in exchange for very long battery life and light weight (say 8 hours of battery life and no heavier than an AirBook). It should include a decent screen (think AirBook again). You work with that on the road and when you get home/to work, you slide it into the docking station. You can continue working where you left off, but with the full power of a desktop at your disposal (desktop-class cpu and gpu, large screen). I'd really, really, really want something like that.

[Eriamjh]

I think a netbook running Leopard would be a dog and SJ knows it. People on this forum complain about MBAs running at 1.6GHz being slow so I don't see how others can enjoy running XP at 1GHz or so.

Selling a netbook doesn't fit in with Apple's position as a high-end seller of high-end machines. With all the talk about how hot netbooks are, I have never seen anyone with one or known anyone who has one. Who's buying these things?

[OreoCookie]

I think Apple can, in some way, make OS X run on a netbook, after all, they've succeeded on the iPhone and the iPod touch. But as soon as you want to use it like a desktop/normal notebook, the anemic cpu performance shows.

Windows Vista and 7 also don't run satisfactorily on netbooks and I bet, a full-blown install of Leopard wouldn't fare any better.

[Simon]

I really don't think they're worried that much about performance. No user will be surprised if his $500 Mac netbook doesn't run CS4 well. The mini's performance sucks and they still sell it. The MB's performance is way better than the much more expensive MBA and they still sell the MBA. Obviously Apple knows people can put performance in relation to things like price or size.

What is really holding them back is likely the sub-par user experience due to bad ergonomics. Things like tiny keyboards and low resolution do not appeal to a guy like Steve at all.

Personally, I would deal with a small KB and low resolution. It would be ok for what I'd use a Mac netbook (web surfing, e-mails).

But that isn't the way Steve wants to see the Mac. The way he sees things every Mac should offer a good all-around OS X experience. No Mac should limited to being a cheap communications terminal. In Apple's opinion the iPhone already takes care of that.

[Maflynn]

I think having an apple netbook would be a good thing. I've gone around on this idea but now, I've come to believe it could be a good idea if designed correctly. I think everyone's complaint about the keyboard is a sound criticism. I found that I'd rather use a tiny netbook on some of my travels then grabbing my MBP. Something to hold my images, do some surfing and word docs.

I've been hoping apple updates its mini computer, I've been wanting a second computer, but if apple releases a netbook, I'd get that over the mini

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

With all the talk about how hot netbooks are, I have never seen anyone with one or known anyone who has one. Who's buying these things?

I’m in the same boat; no-one I know actually owns a netbook. My dad briefly considered getting one as an adjunct to his work desktop, but when he looked at them closely, he ditched the idea and went with a laptop instead of both. I think most people who give it any real thought will come to the same conclusion.

I’m really not sold on the need for a netbook. The things are too big to be taken everywhere like a phone, and too small, compromised, and underpowered to be viable replacement for my MBP. In reality, I think Jobs was right about the iPhone — it does fulfill the role of a netbook for most people. And more than that, it is truly portable. I can take it everywhere with me without having to make any special arrangements, or take a bag; I just pop it in my pocket and go.

If — if — Apple releases a netbook, I think they’ll use iPhone OS X, not Leopard. As Gruber points out, it would likely be the only way to get reasonable performance on such a compromised device. Even then, I share his scepticism as to whether Apple would even bother with this sector of the market.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@ajprice
Regarding 2., that's not quite what SJ said. He said they don't know how to make a good mobile computer at that price point. Namely, the current solutions are too slow and wouldn't `meet Apple's standards' as you (IMO correctly) write later on.

I'm not sure why people are so convinced that these netbooks are too slow for what they're designed to do - browsing, chatting, maybe a little light word processing, etc.

Leopard runs perfectly fine on my old 733MHz PowerMac G4 with 1.5GB PC133 RAM. I find it hard to believe that Leopard would be unbearably slow on a 1.6GHz Intel processor (with 2GB DDR3 RAM) - not to mention that dual-core is coming to the Atom line fairly soon.

I don't believe for a minute that Apple can't make a good $500 computer, or that Leopard can't run well on those specs. It's that Apple has made themselves a premium hardware provider, and therefore won't provide a $500 (or less) laptop with their branding. It would be like seeing the Lexus or Acura brand on a little tin-can car like a Honda Fit or a Geo Metro.

But then I saw them first-hand and I quickly changed my mind: the keyboard is unbearably small (for me, at least) and the resolution and quality of the screen is simply not up to the tasks I have in mind. I wear glasses and I don't want to squint at the display to see something.

People definitely have different computing needs, but if you're really interested in one, I'd highly suggest going to Best Buy and Fry's to check out the display models. My Acer Aspire One has a great keyboard, and I can touch-type just as quickly on that as I can on a full-size keyboard (and I'm ninja fast - like 120wpm). The screen works well for me. If you want something bigger, though, the HP Mini 1000 has a 95% full-size keyboard with nice, large keys and a 10" display that's plenty big at 1024x600.

The resolution isn't high by today's de facto 1280x800 minimum on laptops, but it's perfect for browsing, chatting, offloading pictures from a digital camera, watching Hulu and YouTube videos, etc. It just depends on what you're using it for. When I'm doing web development or graphic design work, I use my desktop with its dual display setup. When I want to talk to people on IM, video chat, or browse the web, I use my Aspire One. I've barely touched my XPS M1330 in months.

If Apple released a subnotebook (besides the Air, which isn't really a subnotebook at all), it would be far too expensive to compete with the rest of the netbook market, even though it would be using most of the same components as other netbooks.

[mattyb]

I have to agree with previous posters - the majority of the netbooks that I've tested have keyboards that are too small. The trackpads aren't much better.

I think that one of the reasons that Apple won't get into the netbook market is the present economic climate. I mean if things weren't so dire, then maybe they'd release a new product but at present I think that they'll concentrate on upgrades and Snow Leopard. Why take the risk?

I'd love to see the docking station functionality that OreoCookie talked about.

[besson3c]

Just what is this market? Gadget geek yuppie types, or people who do actual work on them?

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Just what is this market? Gadget geek yuppie types, or people who do actual work on them?

I believe its directed to people who need light usage and high portability. I've seen a lot of marketing directed towards students. This makes a lot of sense, especially for the netbooks that have SSDs, the durability, extremely small form factor and the low cost makes these a great tool for someone who wants to jot down notes, or do some web surfing.

I cannot see them being a viable alternative to replacing a "full sized" laptop computer or as a desktop replacement. As I mentioned, I want one so when I travel on vacation I can take something that will easily be packed away, hold my photos and do some light surfing/documents.

[moep]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Windows Vista and 7 also don't run satisfactorily on netbooks and I bet, a full-blown install of Leopard wouldn't fare any better.

I’m not a big fan of Windows 7 either but still need to comment on this. You can’t compare an outdated 800 Mhz Celeron machine with newer Netbooks. The kicker here is that the vast majority new Netbook come with a 1.6 Ghz Atom Process and most importantly the GMA 950 chipset which Windows 7 utilizes to draw it’s UI elements with hardware acceleration.

A friend recently let me try out his Samsung NC10 (stock except for 2GB RAM9 and I was astonished how snappy™ Windows 7 felt despite all the Aero junk being enabled to the max.
This little machine really flies with Win7 and definitely feels nothing like what the review stated.

As for the target audience for netbooks: I’ve recently ordered a NC10 just for traveling purposes (and to double as a 160GB storage tank for AVCHD videos). My 17" MBP is way too large to lug around and I don’t want to buy a 2000€ MBA have it stolen/dropped/damaged on the way.
The NC10 costs 399€ and runs OS X out of the box — if you can live with a few flaws such as the Headphone Jack not working, which i can.
Battery runtime is somewhere between 7.5-8 hours per charge.

[besson3c]

But it seems like the only person that would buy one is somebody who doesn't already own a laptop, or an iPhone for the matter?

The market just seems way too small. Only for people that want high portability (the majority of people don't travel very often), and within this subset of people something that is not a laptop, and within this subset of people something that they would be willing to purchase.

Apple seems to lack interest in products that cater to small markets. They barely keep the Mac Mini alive, barely kept the eMac alive... It was if it these products were just little experiments that were allocated only a minimal amount of marketing resources. Would something like this be worth their time, effort, and expense?

[Luca Rescigno]

The biggest selling point of netbooks is their low price, which is usually the last thing on Apple's mind when they design a computer. The portability of netbooks is nice, but it's as much a side effect of their low price (meaning not enough money to include a 12-13" WXGA screen) as it is a conscious decision to improve portability.

The only way Apple would be able to do a netbook that is reasonably priced and performs fairly well would be to make a larger version of the iPod touch, but I don't really think that's necessary.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by moep 

I’m not a big fan of Windows 7 either but still need to comment on this. You can’t compare an outdated 800 Mhz Celeron machine with newer Netbooks. The kicker here is that the vast majority new Netbook come with a 1.6 Ghz Atom Process and most importantly the GMA 950 c

Just a short comment: as far as CPU power is concerned, they are comparable. The Atom is not a fast cpu. So yes, if the Celeron doesn't run W7 properly, then this allows conclusions on the usability for Atom-based machines as well. Since the Celeron is faster than the Atom, it's the processor of choice for the Asus eeePC.

I haven't tried Windows 7 yet, but it looks like what Vista should have been. I'm not an anti-7 zealot here. Since you've tried Windows 7 on an Atom-based and I certainly don't subscribe to Thurrot's every word, perhaps it's not as bad as he makes it sound.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I believe its directed to people who need light usage and high portability. I've seen a lot of marketing directed towards students.

Actually, everybody I know who owns one (and one guy who's got several of them for his relatives and friends back home in Tunisia) need light usage, CHEAP and portability.

The PRICE is the argument - to most buyers, these things appear to be primarily communications devices, and thus they can't justify spending more than the €350 for them than an eeePC costs.

I suspect that Apple is treating these things as a quick-flaring fad before devices like their own iPod touch and iPhone roll up the market in their next two or three iterations.

We're much more likely to see an iPod touch maxi than an Apple netbook, IMO.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

The biggest selling point of netbooks is their low price, which is usually the last thing on Apple's mind when they design a computer. The portability of netbooks is nice, but it's as much a side effect of their low price (meaning not enough money to include a 12-13" WXGA screen) as it is a conscious decision to improve portability.

This is an excellent point.

[slugslugslug]

I see netbooks reasonably often around school (I'm a Duke Ph.D. student), and I saw quite a few at the Society for Neuroscience conference in November. I can't see having one as my only machine, but if Apple came out with a netbook, I'd consider buying one and swapping my MacBook for an iMac. The main things I would want to do with a portable machine are browsing, e-mail/chat, writing, reading PDFs, and skimming PowerPoints.

I would love to have something lighter than my MacBook for this and bigger-screened than my iPhone. Hell, I might even give up the iPhone, and I'm really not sure how people think it competes. It's decent for web browsing and checking e-mail, but I can't have long correspondences on it or read whole journal articles.

All that said, I think Apple will sit this market out for at least the rest of the year. They've got a slate of products that's doing well for them, and they've started to get very careful and deliberate about when they expand into new lines.

[Veltliner]

It's been mentioned a few times, and I absolutely agree: a too small a keyboard defeats the purpose of a netbook as a cheaper and smaller and more portable machine for internet and word processing.

If the keyboard isn't close to standard, then you can't write using 10 fingers, which makes it unproductive.

So, are netbooks just so cute because they are new and cheap and will they fade away when users find out they can't do much with them?

[cbrfanatic]

Like said before, i have yet to see net books roaming around, besides the ocasional Eee PC in coffee shops around manhattan.

someone made a great point how the iPhone (&Touch) really are a Net Book in a sense, i carry my iphone everwhere, even read RSS feeds while on the pooper sometimes, and i keep it synced with my mac, so i have my calendar updates and such n such, so when i want to browse a site real quick, check email, twitter, macnn, google, facebook, etc, without opening my bag and turning on my laptop, i just whip out my iPhone and get it all done just as fast, if not faster then anyone on a net book.

Id like to see someone update their twitter feed, write an email, check the weather, stocks, and check Macnn in less than five minutes while commuting on the NYC subway with their net books, while i do it all on my iPhone and laugh as you have no elbow room to even unzip your bag

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm not sure why people are so convinced that these netbooks are too slow for what they're designed to do - browsing, chatting, maybe a little light word processing, etc.

Yes, that's what the initial eeePC did -- and it did it well. But there was an immediate trend to `overcome' the limitations set by the specific Linux install (direct access to a few integrated apps). Most netbooks sold today run Windows.

To be honest, when I saw the initial eeePC, I thought, `this is a computer for my sister' who only does the things with her computer that were covered by the eeePC: e-mail, word processing, browsing and a bit of chatting.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Leopard runs perfectly fine on my old 733MHz PowerMac G4 with 1.5GB PC133 RAM. I find it hard to believe that Leopard would be unbearably slow on a 1.6GHz Intel processor (with 2GB DDR3 RAM) - not to mention that dual-core is coming to the Atom line fairly soon.

I was talking about Windows 7 for the most part.
What is and isn't fast is entirely subjective: when I went from an iBook G3 600 to an iBook G3 800, the latter seemed very fast (the first Mac of mine that IMO that acceptably ran OS X). Then again, switching from that machine to a PowerBook G4 with 1.25 GHz, the latter seemed fast and going back to the old machine made it look very slow.

My point was a little bit different: IMO the approach to simply install the latest desktop OS doesn't really work for several reasons -- and in case of Windows, speed was one of them. Now I think the aspect of speed can be alleviated via the leverage of technologies like Grand Central. But the usability doesn't change that much.

But in case of usability, for modern applications on Windows, the resolution offered by netbooks simply isn't enough, in some cases dialogs simply don't fit the screen. That's because nobody has thought of a niche and then optimized machine size and user interface. Part of the blame is borne by Microsoft's business model: they only do the software and no hardware. Apple can do better here: they can optimize size vs. usability in their own way and come up with a product.

For most people, the netbooks they want and buy (and yours fits this description as well) aren't really netbooks (in the sense of the original eeePC), but rather cheap and very small notebooks that run a standard desktop OS. There is nothing wrong with that, but having seen these gadgets, I don't think I'm willing to compromise this much. (And I love light-weight notebooks, I really wish Apple would allow us to choose a better screen for the MacBook like other notebook manufacturers.)

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

People definitely have different computing needs, but if you're really interested in one, I'd highly suggest going to Best Buy and Fry's to check out the display models. My Acer Aspire One has a great keyboard, and I can touch-type just as quickly on that as I can on a full-size keyboard (and I'm ninja fast - like 120wpm). The screen works well for me. If you want something bigger, though, the HP Mini 1000 has a 95% full-size keyboard with nice, large keys and a 10" display that's plenty big at 1024x600.

I know they do, but if you look at the evolution of netbooks, they went relatively quickly from puny 8" screens (which I can still see around the building here) to screens up to 12" (`normal/acceptable' screen sizes). Personally, my limit is 12" since I wear glasses.

Again, my observation is that the current generation of `netbooks' isn't made up of real netbooks anymore, but small, cheap, lightweight notebooks for the most part. I think it's prudent to wait to see `what the people want' and then release something very nice.

I also think that Apple eventually will enter the market: replace the Mac mini with something cheaper and still smaller, but still sufficiently powerful. I also think that since Apple isn't locked into using x86 processors, it's not unlikely that they will use new flavors of ARM chips that are just as fast, but draw much less power and are probably also cheaper. This is a good thing™

[powerbooks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just a short comment: as far as CPU power is concerned, they are comparable. The Atom is not a fast cpu. So yes, if the Celeron doesn't run W7 properly, then this allows conclusions on the usability for Atom-based machines as well. Since the Celeron is faster than the Atom, it's the processor of choice for the Asus eeePC.

I haven't tried Windows 7 yet, but it looks like what Vista should have been. I'm not an anti-7 zealot here. Since you've tried Windows 7 on an Atom-based and I certainly don't subscribe to Thurrot's every word, perhaps it's not as bad as he makes it sound.

This is not true. eee PC used to have Celeron only before Atom is made into production. Most of their "higher end" netbooks such as 901, 1000H, use Atom.

I have 901, and Windows 7 definitely runs very nice on a new upgraded SSD drive. Hack, even Vista is usable on netbook for majority of users. Not sure on Celeron, though.

[Remlyor]

Something exist in Apple's product line, in all save word processing:
1- Pricing, $400 and down.
2- Wifi.
3- Fits in your shirt pocket.
4- decent battery life, save too much downloading.
5- Email, web browsing, and chat.

Guess what it is, if you thought iPod Touch you were right.