
Daring Fireball: Apple Netbook Claim Chowder - sant0sk1
http://daringfireball.net/2009/10/apple_netbook_claim_chowder
======
jsz0
I think the big reason Apple hasn't experienced a decline in Macbook sales is
the 13" Macbook is a really good mix of performance, usability and
portability. <5lbs, thin, fast, good battery life. My assumption is most
netbooks are being bought as a secondary machine to compliment either a
desktop or a bulky 7-10lbs PC laptop that may perform well but is definitely
not super portable. So let's say someone spends $500-$600 for the primary
computer and another $300-$400 on the netbook. That adds up pretty close to
the sticker price of a Macbook 13" which can legitimately serve both purposes
as a primary computer and a highly portable computer. Is there really that
much difference between 10"/3lbs and 13"/5lbs? I don't think so. (can't pocket
it, you're probably using a laptop case or bag to transport it anyway. 2"/2lbs
isn't a big deal)

~~~
wmeredith
It also helps that you can get an Intel Core2 Duo 13" Unibody Macbook for $899
in Apple's refurb section. (With the same warranty as the new ones.)

------
wooby
My favorite computer of all time was the Powerbook G4 12". Sturdy build, full
size keys, and internal DVD. Were it not for Apple's switch to Intel, I'd
still be using it.

Was that a netbook? Not quite, but I really wish Apple would bring it back.

~~~
wmeredith
I wish I could upvote this twice. I'm surfing on one right now. It's just
right lap-sized for my wife and I. It's going to be my couch computer for a
looooong time. Until Apple makes something small again. It doesn't have to be
a cheap-o netbook it just has to be little.

------
hegemonicon
The margins on netbooks are currently so small that they're essentially a
commodity, and apple has never been a commodity company.

Netbooks are clearly popular, so it seems unlikely that apple simply isn't
interested in the market. The question is "can apple create a netbook that's
differeniated enough from the rest of the pack that they can get the margins
they want on it." The fact that one doesn't seem to be in development yet
suggests the answer is 'no', but they may just be focusing their resources
elsewhere.

~~~
ugh
“doesn't seem to be in development yet”

How do you know?

~~~
mikeryan
because there has been absolutely no indication from Apple that they are?

(note no one is saying they aren't, just that they don't "seem" to be)

~~~
ugh
Well, with Apple that doesn’t mean anything. Sure, updates to existing
products or small new stuff may leak. But the big things? You don’t see ’em
comin’.

But I would have to agree that it at least seems not very plausible to me that
Apple is, at the moment, developing anything that would be recognisable as a
Netbook. Hopefully not, because Netbooks may be cheap but they sure are ugly.

------
incomethax
Apple has a netbook - its called the iPhone. I use my iPhone like I would use
a netbook and then some.

~~~
chollida1
> I use my iPhone like I would use a netbook and then some.

So you can install any software you want on it?

~~~
incomethax
Not being able to install any application is irrelevant.

The fact is, I can install a large number of applications on my iPhone, the
device is readily available, and has a great web experience.

The point of a netbook in the first place is to be able to access the web, and
be able to _quickly_ get at the web - not to be able to install all
applications.

------
pieter
Apple might have something in the pipeline yet, even if it isn't the iTablet.
There's some interesting recent development in the low-power processors, and
Apple has one advantage above all the other computer vendors: they aren't tied
to x86.

I think it's clear that Apple isn't going to run OS X on a device targeted for
the netbook buyers. That leaves them with either the iPhone OS, or a
completely new OS. The iPhone OS already uses ARM chips, a new OS would give
them the choice between x86 and ARM. One obvious choice would the new Cortex
A9 (<http://www.arm.com/news/25922.html>) processors. The ultra-low power
variant is already as fast as the Atom CPU's, the higher power variants are
much faster, and you can basically put as many of those cores on a chip as you
want. Until now such power has not been available to ARM-based devices, so it
might be that Apple even has a complete device ready, but was just waiting for
enough speed to put in it.

Using this speedy processor and their customized OS, Apple can put something
on the market others can't: an intuitive, speedy system that is designed to
run on a small footprint. That might be something people are willing to pay a
premium for.

~~~
robin_reala
Huh, interesting. I was going to post a nit-picking comment about ‘iPhone OS’
being OS X as well (Apple even used to refer to it as ‘OS X iPhone’) but now
they seem to be using your nomenclature. E.g.:
[http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/referencelibrary/G...](http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/referencelibrary/GettingStarted/URL_iPhone_OS_Overview/index.html)

------
catone
That logic doesn't seem very, er, logical to me.

The post is basically a bunch of quotes about Apple a netbooks. Some saying
they should have one because an Apple netbook would be cool (it probably would
be), some saying not having a netbook is hurting Apple (they seem to be doing
just fine), some making shoddy predictions about slumping sales, and some
saying Apple is a missing an opportunity (maybe they are).

And Gruber's conclusion appears to be that had Apple had a netbook they'd be
losing money. How does one reach that conclusion? Presumably, he means that
netbook sales would cannibalize high end laptop sales. But that's doubtful.
Most people who buy a netbook either have a high end laptop as well (like me
-- I have a Macbook, a Sony VAIO, and an Asus EeePC) or were never going to
buy a high end laptop in the first place.

So... you can debate the merits or necessity of Apple adding a netbook all you
want, but claiming that adding a netbook would have caused Apple to _lose_
money is just silly.

That said, Gruber appears to be a Yankees fan, so he can't be all bad...

~~~
jacobolus
No, the claim is that a bunch of "analysts" who said Apple was doomed,
_DOOMED_ , if they didn't make a netbook ASAP were proven wrong, and quite
dramatically.

Indeed, remember when Michael Dell famously said Apple should just give up on
the hardware business, a few years ago? Well, Apple now has enough cash on
hand to buy Dell flat out. That’s a pretty impressive turnaround in about a
decade.

------
jpcx01
Gruber's logic is probably faulty. If there were an Apple netbook/table,
people wouldn't stop buying normal apple laptops. They'd buy these in
addition, and in much greater numbers.

Apple has 10% marketshare. If they put out smaller, lower cost system, it's
unlikely that the losses from existing mac users switching to a lower cost
system would outweight the gains of people who would buy a decent mac netbook
over a crappy windows one.

~~~
jacobolus
People have been making arguments similar to yours for 10 years, and the only
nod Apple has really made to them is the Mac Mini. In that time, Apple has
been extraordinarily successful. Why do you think they should change
strategies from the incredibly lucrative one they currently employ to the one
you are suggesting, which they have essentially rejected for the past 10
years?

> _people wouldn't stop buying normal apple laptops ... people who would buy a
> decent mac netbook over a crappy windows one._

Do you have any evidence for any of this, or is this pure conjecture?

~~~
blueben
He has exactly as much evidence as the original article does. He just doesn't
have a popular blog to boost the credibility of his opinion.

~~~
jacobolus
The "original article" makes exactly zero unsubstantiated claims. Its points
are (a) a bunch of wankers made terrible predictions, and (b) their
predictions came false. Jpcx01's post, by contrast, is purely speculative.

------
amackera
I don't know what's wrong with me, since a lot of people seem to like this
guy, but his posts just piss me off.

~~~
allenbrunson
he is sometimes abrasive, which i'd prefer he wasn't. but he has his finger on
the pulse of the apple ecosystem like no one else.

and it seems to me that articles like this are occasionally warranted, because
the attitude in the tech press about apple has always been 'wow, this company
totally doesn't act like microsoft! clearly, they need to act more like
microsoft' for decades, to the point where it's infuriating.

~~~
dasil003
I like Gruber because he gets Apple without being a fanboy. Some people would
disagree, but those tend to be Apple haters who irrationally believe that
Apple's success consists solely of pulling the wool over people's eyes with
clever marketing. Gruber on the other hand, repeatedly sets the record
straight on Apple in a way that would be quite informative to analysts if they
paid attention.

I have to admit though it's fun to watch analysts' perennial struggle to
understand what makes a user-experience driven company work. Even after Apple
almost kicked the bucket following all that analyst advice in the 90s, there
is always this contingent that somehow thinks Apple should be Dell +
Microsoft.

~~~
jbellis
> I like Gruber because he gets Apple without being a fanboy. Some people
> would disagree, but those tend to be Apple haters

I have two macs and just ordered a third, but Gruber is a fanboy. (An
intelligent one, but a fanboy all the same.)

~~~
pohl
I need to check...is there still room for being a fan of something without
being a fanboi, or have those two concepts completely merged?

------
imok20
I'm not sure the analysis is correct at all... I own both an iPhone and a
MacBook Pro, and neither of them quite serve the purpose a netbook would.

I'm considering getting an Asus netbook within the next 6 months should I hear
no word of an Apple version. I'd rather run a lean OSX than Linux, but I'd be
fine with Linux if it meant I'd have a portable full-sized keyboard with nice
i/o options and a big-ish screen.

Perhaps the plastic Macbooks would compete with an Apple netbook, but it's
hard to believe that a significant number of people who already own a Mac and
people who wouldn't considering buying a Mac wouldn't purchase a netbook.

Correlation != causation, Gruber.

Unreasoned speculation and a small assortment of media articles do not a
convincing argument make.

~~~
unalone
The claim chowder wasn't just "I'd like Apple to make a netbook." The claim
chowder was "If Apple doesn't do this, they are fucked." Apple didn't do it;
Apple wasn't fucked.

~~~
imok20
I'm not disputing that, at all. I'm saying that if Apple HAD done it, they
wouldn't be fucked. Gruber suggests that if they had made a netbook, they
would have lost money. (Been fucked, in the lingua franca, evidently.)

~~~
imok20
He outright typed it, doesn't just suggest. Forgive me... "As Jason Snell put
it, imagine how much money Apple could have lost if only it had a netbook."

~~~
jacobolus
No, you are mis-reading: the “analysts” said that Apple would lose money if
they didn’t make a netbook; instead, they made boatloads of money. Snell is
snarkily pointing out that said analysts got things precisely backwards
backwards by rhetorically asking how much they’d “lose” _with_ a netbook.
There’s no suggestion that they’d actually have lost money, or gained money,
from a netbook. It’s pure snark, posed as a counterfactual rhetorical
question. No one can really know how things would have gone with an Apple
netbook: the point is only to call out those who second-guessed Apple’s
strategy and have now been made fools of.

