Why Apple must do a Netbook now
Mac OS X loading onto the Dell Mini 9.
(Credit: Gizmodo)My brother-in-law Ken IM'd me the other day with this message: "Did you see they're loading OS X on Netbooks?" He sent me a link to a Gizmodo article that explained how to hack a Netbook into running Apple's OS X. He also pointed me to a chart that BoingBoing put together showing how compatible various Netbooks are with OS X.
Obviously, none of this stuff is geared to the average consumer--and there are certainly some bugs to contend with--but with some tweaks, techies have gotten certain Netbooks to run OS X shockingly well. Perfect or not, those articles and some videos had my brother-in-law, who's a total Applehead, champing at the bit to get his hands on an Apple Netbook.
Here's the conversation that followed:
Ken: "Apple really needs to do a Netbook."
Me: "Yes, now. It's the biggest growth category in laptops. They're missing out on a big opportunity to take Windows' share away."
Ken: "Apple keeps saying it doesn't want to go near the low-end and make crappy notebooks with low margins. Would tarnish the brand, hurt the bottom line."
Me: "They're lying. They know they have to go there."
Ken: "Agree."
Me: "So they slap a little design flair on the thing, put one model out for $599 and another for $699. Sure, the Windows version would cost you $350-$450, but I'd have no problem paying the Apple premium on one of these."
Ken: "A lot of people would pay $599 for an Apple Netbook."
Me: "No one's buying the Macbook Air at $1,800."
Ken: "I wouldn't say no one."
Me: "OK, but it's sort of the Apple TV of laptops. It's just not that relevant. Most people would prefer buying a more powerful notebook that weighs a little more for a grand."
Ken: "I agree. I almost bought an Air when it first came out, but I'm glad I didn't pull the trigger." [Note: Ken uses a MacBook Pro but he wants a Netbook for nonbusiness travel].
Me: "Apple always talks about design--and they do have great designers--but what people want now is cheap. As I said, this thing doesn't have to be a masterpiece. I'd rather see them keep things simple and elegant and keep the cost down to $599."
Ken: "You should write a column."
Me: "I will."
I have a feeling a lot of other people are having similar conversations. And while I believe that Apple's on the verge of missing an opportunity here--and think it needs to move quickly to put out a Netbook--I also think that it's well aware of the market dynamics.
Microsoft has made it a point to say that Windows 7 is designed to run on entry-level machines, and it's clearly targeting low-cost Netbooks as the next big frontier.
At the same time, Apple is heading toward its own release of a new operating system, Snow Leopard, which is also designed to run faster and more efficiently. So, you'd think that it, too, is ultimately looking toward more inexpensive PCs, including a so-called MacBook Mini and the much-rumored next-gen Mac Mini.
As far my Netbook experience goes, I've been working on and off on a Lenovo S10 loaner unit, and like it enough to strongly consider one of these machines over the next few months.
My brother-in-law is encouraging me to convert the Lenovo into an OS X machine (the S10 is on the list of Netbooks that do pretty well with OS X), though he knows that neither Apple nor Lenovo would be too keen on me doing this. As Gizmodo says, "Hackintoshing" violates the OS X EULA, and should you want to return your hacked Lenovo S10 or Dell Mini 9 for service, you'll probably get the cold shoulder.
"I'm really tempted to buy one of these things and put OS X on it," he IM'd me last night. "I can get a loaded Dell Mini 9 Linux version for just over $400. 2 gigs of RAM and a 32GB flash-based drive."
He'd rather wait for the Apple Netbook, of course. But I have a feeling that if it doesn't come soon, he's not going to be able to wait any longer. The force is strong for the Apple lover who longs for a Netbook.
What do you guys think?
Helpful links:
CNET's best Netbooks (full reviews)
Gizmodo's step-to-step guide to turning the Dell Mini 9 into a Mac Netbook
BoingBoing Netbook compatibility chart
Wired's running OS X on a Netbook (Apple made Wired pull the video)
Wake up and restore from MSI Wind Netbook with Mac OS X (YouTube video):
Hunkered down in New York City, Executive Editor David Carnoy covers the gamut of gadgets and writes his Fully Equipped column, which carries the tag line "The electronics you lust for." He's also the author of "Knife Music," a novel. E-mail David. Follow David on Twitter.
You and a lot of Windows users that are drooling at the mouth for a real Macintosh always say the Macintosh is too expensive How are you arriving at this? If you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, Macs are often within a couple of hundred dollars of a generic Windows computer. You can't compare say, a MacBook to a bottom shelf Dell. It isn't even a close comparison. You have to compare not only the hardware, but also the software included. Macs come loaded with very good software. And the hardware of a Mac is enclosed in a much, much nicer, better built case.
When I shopped for my MacBook back in the early spring of 2008, the closest I could find in a competitor was a Toshiba that was actually $200 more than the Apple, but didn't come with any real software, just trial versions. Most of the competitors were using Celeron M processors or lower versions of the Core 2 Duo (yes there are lots of different versions of the chip, more now than then). Do your homework before espousing the Wintel party line!
Apple is somewhat competitive in the notebook space, but I still don't think that Apple notebooks are worth my money, mainly because there are better open source solutions for most iLife software eliminates the software advantage and the amount of RAM is very low for a notebook of the price of a MacBook and the RAM isn't even of that high quality.
Do your homework, Macs are only worth it, some of the time
If you care about how everything looks, maybe you want to spend another $300+ on a fancy case or insane thinness, but when you look inside, a Mac is a PC, nothing of better quality, the human who assembled the Mac is just as skilled as the dude who assembled a Dell.
If you think that you really need the software and don't want to pay for it separate and hate free stuff(why? is my question), the Mac software might be an advantage, but Macs aren't worth the money for most.
Whoa woah woah, there buddy, I'm going to have to stop you in your tracks right now before you make all Mac people sound ignorant. Iphoto (by the way, I hate starting any sentence with a mac product that purposefully has that lowercase i), iMovie, and iTunes are not the best programs out there. They are good for the average base, but please do not say that iMovie is the best movie editing program out there. Avid and Final Cut Pro fans will finally agree on something and kill you. As far as iPhoto goes, there are definitely better photo editing/organizing tools out there; touting Apple around, Aperture is quite excellent actually. For those that want me to mention Adobe, I will not, for the mere fact that they are bloatware, and you should know that. Also, Rafe of Cnet fame, really does not apparently like it. iTunes is really finicky and I've really only seen it done well on a Mac. On a PC, it seems like bloatware. Tastes really differ with iTunes and people hold a lot of grudges with it; personally, I'm tired of having to download and install those 200+ megabyte files every so often.
Now, I love Macintosh computers and OS X and think that the iLife suite is a great starter program for the average person, but to think that they are the best programs out there? They are definitely not.
As far as hardware is concerned, Apple does make very quality items, at least the things they have their hands on. Nvidia making those cruddy graphics cards with the cheap soldering, has nothing really to do with Apple. The ram is actually the same as the stuff in other people's computers. The reason there is not so much on the Mac platforms is because the operating system does fine with that amount. It doesn't need the same amount that Vista needs, hence, why Windows 7 is trying to shed a few pounds to become speedier and more netbook compatible.
For the remark that Windows users can just download stuff on the internet that can replicate iLife better. Well... You expect the average computer user to do that? You know that Internet Explorer is still the most used internet browser because the average computer user doesn't download other, better free programs, right? If you start the average user off with better applications, isn't that worth the higher price?
The average person doesn't know how to get bloatware, trial versions, and other things off their computer when they first buy it; the Mac OS X platform has none of those things. People are paying Best Buy's Geek Squad to take that stuff off of their PC's when they buy them. They pay that extra amount, which would also equal out the price of a Mac even more.
1)Macs run Windows better than a $300 eMachine, if you make comparisons, put them in similar price ranges
2)iTunes is not the best music program, iTunes is an awesome store, but the program itself isn't that good
3)iMovie isn't the best movie editing, its good, but you can get better for free
4)Yes, I have a Mac, a dual G4, after the switch to Intel, Macs have sucked
5)actually, if I needed something high performance in the CPU area, the Mac Pro is actually a decent deal
6)I'm a gamer, I have numerous gaming PC's, but I do stuff other than gaming too
7)2 gigabytes of RAM was enough a year or two ago, 4-8 gigabytes is what I need now. PhotoshopCS4 can run on 2 gigabytes, but its really slow for my taste.
However, Apple is notorious for being a laggard in terms of product development, but once they release something Apple fanbois and fangirls drool over it thinking it's the best thing sinced sliced bread. If, or more appropriately, when Apple releases one, it will receive the same fanfare as any other mac.product, while those in the know will either buy something that's cheaper and more powerful or just continue to work with what they have.
Me: "They're lying. They know they have to go there."
NO, NO, NO!
People do not seem to understand: A MAJOR REASON APPLE HAS REMAINED NEARLY VIRUS-FREE IS BECAUSE OF ITS PRICING STRUCTURE. If everyone could afford Apple computers, that would include hackers/virus creators--and they'd have more incentive.
Keep Macs out of the hands of the masses!
Apple already has a netbook, it's called the Macbook Air..... BTW, Apple won't be dropping the price on air anytime soon... Even though they could by half and still make good change on it.
The air is awesome, c'mon if it was a windows laptop then people would buy it as an on-the-go gaming laptop for cod4 and the like. It is extremely thin and portable after all and looks amazing but still has the power to use it as an every day pc.
Correct! Not a single MacBook Air has been sold, that is why they have been pulled from the shelves.
If it were a windows laptop it would cost half as much. That is the point of this whole argument.
"Correct! Not a single MacBook Air has been sold, that is why they have been pulled from the shelves."
I call BS on this statement Fanboy. Made up facts make you look ignorant.
I can afford an MacBook Air
I wanted a MacBook Air as my travel notebook, but it has only one USB port and I don't want to carry around a clunky USB hub
I hate the MBA until Apple puts 2 more USB ports on it
Luckily, I would be a party to no such chicanery.
Take an iPhone / iPod touch and add an external screen (10") and blue tooth keyboard and mouse (both apple.).
Now you have a netbook that does cut and paste , has a big screen, a keyboard and mouse. Unplug the iPhone and you have everything in a small fashion . All you need are the few connections and software.
The best netbook ever. 8 gig, wireless, bluetooth, etc.
en
and their share in the us market is almost non-existant !
Nokia make some good cheap phones
but their expensive smartphones r not so great
Nokia's sell mostly in europe and parts of asia
and they r not as dominant as you think in the high end market !
look at their razor thin profit margins vs Apple's and Rim's !
Nokia's netbook = fail !
Nokia is still trying hard to kill the Iphone with their gimmicky touch O.S!
So Apple could care less about wat Nokia r doing especially in the netbook space
What does this have to do with netbooks or running Mac OS X on a netbook? Nothing, that's right. So stick to the subject at hand please.
It's also interesting to note the Netbook Vs Smartphone battle. With smartphones rapidly being able to do more and more, who knows where it will go? Truthfully, I use my laptop less and less now with the iPhone always on me.
As for "the fruit" releasing a netbook, I'm going with a no on that one. Apple would make it too well, and I believe it would cannibalize sales from higher-end computers. Why would a company doing pretty damn well considering, come out with a product that essentially creates less money as a whole.
Besides, running iWork or iLife on a currently slow netbook, may not be the experience envisioned for customers. But if they do make it work, then you have that catch 22 I stated above with losing sales on high tickets.
If iPhone and Mac Book Air had a baby, and that baby had multitouch, 3G, a solid-state drive, and a tablet-style form factor, I'd pay $600-$800 dollars for it if I were an early-adopter Apple acolyte.
You lost it on locking on touch screen. Its the software.... and ps, its multitouch and patented by Apple.
I fully expect Apple to skate to where the puck will be not where it was..... again.
Just a thought.
en
OoooOooooo Multitouch - guess what? I can't speak for anyone else, but I truly could care less.
I stand by my point. There were touch screen phones before the iPhone.
Typical fanboi comment.
I think wat they meant was
Apple re-invented touchscreen phones
I'm pretty sure the touch phones before the Iphone were all POS
now it's all about finger based UI, gestures ,App stores and ease of use over lame hardware features like better megapixels etc.
Apple was the first company that made touchscreen phones
easy to use and popular !
"I stand by my point. There were touch screen phones before the iPhone.
Typical fanboi comment."
And I guess everyone is copying Voltaire since he was one of the first to start pushing electrons around. Hmmm, innovation does not mean starting from scratch, it means taking stuff and making it better.
and speaking of fanboys..... I wonder what the word is for those who cannot stand anyone who appreciates good art, literature, and science.... ??? :-)
Remember, touch has been around for a long time. Multi touch and great software makes it better, but its the presentation and UI that makes it great.
So can we lose the dislike and just focus on the hardware actually delivered and its performance.???
Just a thought.
en
I think they will bring out an iPodbook. It will have an 7 or 8 inch multi-touch screen, a keyboard, a multi-touch trackpad and run not Mac OSX but the iPod/iPhone OS. It will have accelerometers, built in 3G and WiFi and run Apps from the App Store. It will link with iPhones so that you can start a chat or email or even a phone call on one and continue it on the other. They probably will sell it like iPhones so that a data plan is required at a subsidized price through the current iPhone carriers, but unlike the iPhone (in most areas) they will also sell it a full cost for those that don't want to buy a data plan.
Ok that is my 2 cents. Actually that is my wish devise so there is a 99.9% chance it will never come about - lol yes my luck is that bad.
Palm tried to do something very similar to what you proposed a few years back. Before there were 'netbooks', Palm decided to create something similar running PalmOS. While the press hailed it as a huge success, I thought it was utter garbage. I think that others felt the same way, because I am not sure if it were ever sold or it was pulled shortly after it was released.
Regardless, it was an expensive mistake.
PS I suppose you didn't know that the iPhone runs OS X... Maybe a reduced footprint one, but one nonetheless.
Yes I know the iPod/iPhone OS is based on the Mac OSX but is not OSX. The iPhone OS will not run Mac OSX apps unless they are recompiled for it. Therefore they are treated as 2 OS's, take a look at any list OS's (not OS versions) and the iPod/iPhone OS is listed separate from Mac OSX as is Windows Mobile separate from Windows.
and in this situation, the cheapskate wins!
He hasn't won yet, he still has to put his Hackintosh together.
IT's win-win. Apple wins by NOT selling to him. Apple doesn't want nor need to have cheapskates as their customers for computers and their growing marketing, great financial results, and stellar innovative products proves. BMW and Porsche don't need to make a Prius competitor and when they do build an electric car it will upscale, sportier, more ergonomic and, guess what, cost more. And people who care about value for the money, instead of considering only price, will buy them. Cheapskates deserve a cheap hack. They'll have to learn to live with it.
There is a big difference in the reliability of a "Hackintosh" and Apple-supported systems. I use my computers professionally and I wouldn't risk it. Besides, I am so much more productive using my Macs (MBPro and Mac Pro 8-core) that I have saved 10 times what I paid).
I find Hackintoshes quite reliable, there are people who will tell whether an update is safe or not, and people can hack to make it a safe update
Why should a company rush into a product category that will ultimately pull their total sales $ and margins down? They own the top end (read high profit) of notebooks - trust me they are not looking to erode price points or sales there.
I would love to see an affordable Apple netbook just like everyone else. But it makes perfect sense why we are not seeing one.
www.eresummit.com Breckenirdge Realtor using a Mac running Windows :)
they are quite durable indeed
less than a year ago... and became popular about 6 months ago. Its not that impressive that you have had a computer for less than a year and it still works.
I don't really treat much netbooks with that much TLC. I bet if I treated a normal notebook like my netbooks, most of the data on them would be lost and half of them would be broken by the end of the day
I haven't tested reliability which is what you're talking about, but I have tested durability.
I guess it was just dumb luck that they were able to amass $28 billion in cash.
Let's see how many of those awesome little netbooks end up in landfills in the next few years.
-
by MrMurder
February 27, 2009 5:43 PM PST
- If Apple makes a netbook, barely anyone would buy it. It would cost, say, $999.99, just like the white Macbook. If you want a netbook that's loaded with features, get the Dell Inspiron Mini 10 (You might want to wait for the TV tuner and 2 GB RAM options to come out). Yeah the price may add up to around $700, but with features jampacked into a ten-inch netbook, It's almost worth what you pay. Remember, Apple laptops are overrated (overpriced for the hardware they offer), and if they make a netbook, it will probably be critisized by Cnet for being too expensive while offering the same hardware that you can get in other netbooks for a lower price.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by bfaulk360
February 27, 2009 10:01 PM PST
- Actually, I'm pretty sure CNET would love it considering they love everything else by Apple. Gee I wonder why... maybe because they make amazing products? I think yes. And no, Apple would not price it at $999 considering that's the cost of the low-end MacBook. As David stated in this article, it would probably be $599 or $699. If Apple priced it at $999, you're right, it wouldn't sell, which is why it won't be $999. It will be a little bit more than the PC equivalent just like always, not two to three times more as $999 would be.
-
-
-
by eldernorm
February 28, 2009 8:02 PM PST
- Hmmm, Actually I think that CNET hates Apple and has been in bed with MS for so long its hard to see ANY other mfg as worthy.
-
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (176 Comments)Why oh why does everyone want Apple to be DELL and MS combined. MS is Vista and bullying small companies to get its way. Apple is iPod, and "insanely great products" and iTunes selling Billions and Billions of songs. Six versions of Vista vs one for Apple. on and on I could go.
I use XP at work and live with the short comings. Apple is for the road when there is NO tech support and my MacBook has to work. Does Apple have problems? Of course. Just not as large and hairy as MS.
Just a thought.
en