Another view: Maybe Apple shouldn’t make a netbook

Apple has consistently denied each and every rumor that the company is making a netbook, while dropping hints that we could see something new in the ultraportable (and hopefully low cost) space iin the future. Most recently, Apple COO called netbooks “junky” and maligned the software and hardware of today’s models.

On the service, it looks like Cook and company are ignoring two very important facts. First, netbooks are selling like hotcakes and there are millions of people out there who seem to be happy enough to pay $400 or so for a junky computer if it’s light weight, super portable, and does at least some of the things they need a computer to do. Second, people have been installing hacked versions of OS X on these netbooks almost since day one, so there’s not only a huge demand for Apple netbooks, there are probably thousands of people already using homemade Macbook Minis.

But TUAW’s Steven Sande isn’t one of them. Not anymore. After trying to use OS X on a Dell Inspiron Mini 9 computer for a few months he gave up. A few of his complaints were hardware oriented. For instance, he hates the computer’s small keyboard and unusual key placement. But that shouldn’t be an issue for users with larger netbooks that have larger keyboards.

But a number of his other complaints are really about OS X running on a netbook — not about netbooks themselves. For instance, he complained that the 1024 x 600 pixel display wasn’t large enough to handle many Mac programs. There are two ways to fix that: Have a device with a higher resolution display or encourage OS X developers to write applications that will scale to smaller screens. My guess is that if and when Apple does release something in this space, they’ll go with the first option.

Sande also complained that the 16GB solid state disk that came with the Dell Mini wasn’t enough for the operating system, software, updates, and files. He constantly found himself running out of space. You could complain about the small space, or a bloated operating system. But what it really comes down to is the fact that Apple never intended for you to run OS X on a Dell Mini 9, and neither did Dell. The hardware and software are capable of working surprisingly well together. But it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the user experience isn’t as good as it could be.

So is the moral of this story that Apple shouldn’t develop a netbook? Not at all.

But given the system requirements of OS X today, it doesn’t make sense for Apple to release a netbook with a 1024 x 600 pixel display, 16GB or less of storage space, or 1GB or less of RAM. Apple keeps dropping hints that it will only release a new product in this space if it can develop something truly innovative. But honestly, it sounds to me like a 10 to 12 inch 1366 x 768 pixel display, an Intel Atom processor (preferably with discrete graphics), 2GB or RAM, and a decent sized hard drive would be enough to make many OS X fans happy. And it’s something Apple could totally build with off the shelf parts and sell for $600 or less.

But I doubt they will. Because that would look too much like a low end Macbook or a Macbook Air, and it could cannibalize sales of higher priced Apple products.

Posted on Monday, April 27th, 2009, 9:09 am by Brad Linder

Buzz

I have been using OSX on my 1000h as my main OS since I got it. I upped the ram to 2GB, and it has been running perfectly for my needs. Sande's complaints are pretty off-point. I am not sure what programs he has been having trouble running, but office, safari, itunes, etc. work just fine. If he's trying to use photoshop or other photo or video editing software, the screen real estate is going to be the least of his problems.
okeribok

Or try to hackintosh the HP 2140 with HD screen. If it doesn't work, just run another OS. NetBooks are for using your browser, maybe playing an audio file here and there, nothing more. Any OS should be able to handle that to anybodies satisfaction. If you need more, you need to shop for a “real” notebook anyway.
Linc (MonkeykIng)

Mini 9 runs OS X to a standard that is below average…and in other breaking new

- A 1984 Toyota Camry not a good replacement for the space shuttle.

- Grizzle bears make poor foster mothers for adolescent salmon.

- Underage pregnant teen prostitutes often poor candidates for pastor wives

There are certain realizations that people come to that do now need to be written about. Steven Sande has come to a realization that is so damn obvious that it does not even need to be written about. What's next Steve going to discuss how toaster are poorly designed because you tried to 'fish' you toast out of one with a fork?
animatio

my man … you said it all. these fool's complaints are the aberrations of a guy living in a land never made for him. best thing might be to show him the way out as quick as possible …..
james katt

Apple will make a tablet using the iPhone/iPod Touch OS X operating system. This way it can make better use of a smaller screen and limited resources. And Apple can make a killing on such a system since it would hardly be more expensive to make than an iPhone/iPod Touch.
Keith

I've had someone tell me my netbook is only good for browsing the web and listening to music, but that was before I launched Office 07, Visual Studio (including a 3d animation), and Media Player & then did Flip3D through the apps as they all ran. It gets bogged down when I compile apps, but it is perfectly acceptable for doing more than browsing, IMO.
(I used mine for Outlook organizational stuff, writing design documents, and coding both web and Windows apps when I'm not at my workstation)
Chas'

I agree, make a netbook with an 11″ screen (allowing a larger, full-size keyboard) and 1024×768 resolution, and 99% of people's complaints would vanish.
Chas'

…he says from his MSI Wind running Leopard 10.5.6..
CapnVan

Of course, the obvious alternative, should they ever decide to get into the market, is just to use a version of the already slimmed-down iPhone OS.

Although, why they'd want to get into a market where the profit margins seem to be considerably below those which they've been having success with is beyond me.
mid

The last sentence of your point of view is the most important. I'm not sure they can stand the storm this way. These are though decisions to make for pc builders today but before they know it, they are put out of the market. And I”m afraid this is what happening to Apple as a computer builder.
Bruce McL

I think Steven Sande picked the wrong netbook for his OS X experiment. I'm running OS X on an MSI Wind. The 90 GB partition is big enough. The keyboard is OK. It's true the screen resolution is a problem for some things.

I don't know what Apple will do in this small computer space, but I think they will do something. It will have a higher resolution screen if it's Mac OS X oriented. If it's iPhone OS X then it could be something quite different from most Netbooks.

In the past, Apple has not been afraid of what you call cannibalizing. The Macintosh killed the Apple II. The cheaper iMac killed the more expensive desktop Macs of the time. I would say that the iPhone and iPod touch is cannibalizing “classic” high end iPod sales. If Apple sees a way to deliver an excellent product that can dominate the market, I think they will do it.
oddone

Apple's in such a unique position as a PC maker…because most of their money comes from the consumer electronics division.

I think that because there's the ipod, iphone, apple TV, and their attendant markets and revenues, Apple isn't in the same position of an Acer, Asus, Lenovo, etc. They have somewhere other than PCs to turn to for their lower priced product revenue…and it generates a hell of a lot more profit for them.

Do I think they might be interested in the space? Absolutely, I even think they might be working on something as we speak. But it's not a make or break for them…they could afford not to. Maybe it's just below their price threshold, or they don't see where they could be “different” enough in such a crowded space.

Or maybe they're getting something ready. Who knows? The conjecture's always fun, though.
Peter

“10 to 12 inch 1366 x 768 pixel display, an Intel Atom processor (preferably with discrete graphics), 2GB or RAM, and a decent sized hard drive would be enough to make many OS X fans happy. And it’s something Apple could totally build with off the shelf parts and sell for $600 or less.”

So, let's see…a smaller screen and an Intel Atom processor is going to somehow make the machine half the price of the aluminum MacBook?
vhh

I've happily used Macs since 1985. My work desktop is a new 24″ iMac, and our home theatre uses a Mac Mini.I also use Linux and Windows also, as needed, but I think the Mac is overall more effective. I bought an MSI wind 5 months ago for $250 for work travel, together with one of the recommended optimal wifi cards for OS X, with every intention of turning it into a Hackintosh. But so far I haven't found the need to do it. I have equivalent software for everything I have on my Mac, most of it free. (I did spring for a $70 killer deal for Office 2007 and $20 for the NOD32 anti virus). I can easily switch the resolution to a scrolling or compressed 1024 x 768. XP runs >5 hrs on my aftermarket 6 cell battery; OS X is reported to run for an hr less. And when traveling, it is sometimes just convenient to have XP rather than OS X.

I think Apple has a dilemma here. To keep up their traditional design standards and make their accustomed margins, they probably have to charge more for a Mac Netbook than the XP=> Win 7 or Linux competition does. And so they have to either risk lower sales, cut corners, or make less money, none of these easy decisions in a recession.

For the moment they are sniping from the sidelines. Not a pretty sight.

I hope they figure a way out soon.
Matt

What 6-cell battery do you have that lasts so long? I'm lucky to get 4 hours in Windows on my U100-420US. I would gladly spend a few bucks for more battery life.

I wonder about this hour less battery under OS X — why does it happen? My Macbook is the opposite; it gets 4+ hours in OS X but only about 2:45 in Windows.
Stevjosco

I think Apple will never make a “netbook” that runs a full version of OS X. What we're more likely to see from them is a portable device with a minimilised OS, possibly tuned to run on ARM processors.

There have been rumours of a bigger version of an iPod Touch, this could be Apple's answer to the lightwieght portable computer market, more so than a netbook made up of cheap off-the-shelf parts.
okeribok

Yeah, Apple sure likes its profits high…
Matt

What 6-cell battery do you have that lasts so long? I'm lucky to get 4 hours in Windows on my U100-420US. I would gladly spend a few bucks for more battery life.

I wonder about this hour less battery under OS X — why does it happen? My Macbook is the opposite; it gets 4+ hours in OS X but only about 2:45 in Windows.
Stevjosco

I think Apple will never make a “netbook” that runs a full version of OS X. What we're more likely to see from them is a portable device with a minimilised OS, possibly tuned to run on ARM processors.

There have been rumours of a bigger version of an iPod Touch, this could be Apple's answer to the lightwieght portable computer market, more so than a netbook made up of cheap off-the-shelf parts.
okeribok

Yeah, Apple sure likes its profits high…

Another view: Maybe Apple shouldn’t make a netbook

Recent Posts

Featured Videos