Should Apple release a cheap notebook?

[clevin]

Nonsense - there's absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't add the functionality required to a slimmed-down OS. Whether they should, however, is a whole other issue.

lol, somebody just can read the whole thread before reply, even in such a thread with only
one page of discussion...

Simply put: no. Apple has positioned itself as a luxury brand in the computer space.

correct, but isn't good

While you may pay a high price for the hardware, you get a VERY solid build quality, an iSight in all computers(save for the Mac Mini, Mac Pro, and XServe), and an unbeatable warranty.

you must slept through the RSS, screen flickering, Flawed iMac LCD, etc

I have a mini, where is the webcam? not to mention my EEE has an webcam too.. is this a serious standard at all?

 

[futuremac]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10008421-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

"...I'm not saying that Apple should reduce its prices because they're too high. Instead, I think Apple should reduce Mac prices to gain market share on Microsoft and PC vendors."

 

[iMacmatician]

Apple doesn't have a OS that can run on cheap laptops like XP or Linux.

leopard is way too heavy for that. And strip down OSes like those on iPhone is not full feature at all.

EXACTLY.

Those people who want Mac OS X on a $500 laptop… you'll just complain about how slow it is, how cramped the screen is, etc. etc. etc. because there will undoubtedly be significant tradeoffs for it.

How about iPhone OS? Well, it's not suited for notebooks at all, but a multi-touch device like the iPhone. It can be scaled up for a bigger display though.

People who buy cheap notebooks need

• Internet
• Office apps
• DVD and music player

...and thats roughly about it. Would OSX really perform these tasks poorly on low end hardware? A year or two ago maybe, but now?

So no iLife or anything higher than that? If this laptop was this limited, then why not just have a bigger iPod touch with an external keyboard? It's not only more portable, but it would probably run faster too.

 

[futuremac]

So no iLife or anything higher than that? If this laptop was this limited, then why not just have a bigger iPod touch with an external keyboard? It's not only more portable, but it would probably run faster too.

No they probably wouldn't need iLife. You'd be surprised how many people use a computer for nothing more than browsing online, typing up or reading some documents or maybe accessing an optical disk.

Also wouldn't a larger iPod Touch basically be a tablet laptop and cost an arm and a leg? So that's pointless.

 

[CWallace]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10008421-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

"...I'm not saying that Apple should reduce its prices because they're too high. Instead, I think Apple should reduce Mac prices to gain market share on Microsoft and PC vendors."

Apple is seeing growth of upwards of 40% year-to-year. They already own almost 70% of the retail market for computers over $2000. And they are now like the fourth-ranked vendor in terms of PC units shipped per quarter.

With respect Mr. Reisinger, but I think Apple is doing very well at gaining marketshare, thank you.

 

[godslabrat]

Apple is seeing growth of upwards of 40% year-to-year. They already own almost 70% of the retail market for computers over $2000. And they are now like the fourth-ranked vendor in terms of PC units shipped per quarter.

Very good point, but looking at this from a strictly marketshare perspective, the vast majority of laptops sold are in the under-$1200 price range. A huge number of THOSE are below $900. If gaining marketshare over Windows is the goal, Apple isn't prepared to play in that league. At all.

Now, overall, I agree with most people here who have said that Apple is a premium brand and caters to people who want the best and are willing to pay for it. I get that. However, if that's the logic we accept, then we can NEVER expect OSX to become a serious alternative to Windows, because Apple will be cutting themselves off from a giant segment of the market.

I spent a few too many years selling laptops, and an unspeakable amount of the general public will happily buy complete crap if it'll surf the net. These same people don't care if their PC runs Windows or OSX, but they won't pay a dime extra for anything... especially a superior operating system.

That then, is my question: why do we talk about marketshare so much when it's very clear that there's a huge chunk of the PC market that Apple can't even touch?

 

[zap2]

EXACTLY.

Those people who want Mac OS X on a $500 laptop… you'll just complain about how slow it is, how cramped the screen is, etc. etc. etc. because there will undoubtedly be significant tradeoffs for it.

Don't tell people what they can't. I have a G4 iBook, and its fine for these basic tasks, I'm sure an Intel Atom would be too

 

[iRebecca27]

Apple is the best. They settle for nothing less.

They are comprable to a luxury car, such as a BMW or Mercedes. If you want a Toyota or Honda, good for you, great car. But definately not as high end...

Mac is to PC as Luxury is to Standard =]

 

[Digital Skunk]

Mac is to PC as Luxury is to Standard =]

True, but I like to think it's:

Mac OS X is to Windows (any flavor) as Saab/Audi/Ferrari is to GM.

Not that either is bad, but there is a difference in performance, price, use, and so forth.

 

[hexonxonx]

After having owned a MB, MBP, a Mac Pro and an iMac all purchased within the past year, I am really not sure Apple is the premium brand everyone thinks they are. Sure they can sell a $3000 desktop and loads of people will buy one without question just because it is Apple, but I don't think the quality is any better than HP or any other leading manufacturer.

Over the years, I have owned many HP computers and never had one fail on me. I did have a desktop where the CPU cooling fan failed. Though I couldn't find the same size fan at Comp USA, I bought one bigger and still bolted it in and the computer was and still is fine today. That computer was purchased at Comp USA a week after the 911 events. It was left on 24/7 the first three years of it's life till it was replaced by a 17" HP laptop/desktop. It's a 1.5GHZ Pentium that came with Windows ME.

Back in July, I also bought another HP DV6000 series notebook. I already had one that I bought XMAS 2007 for about $1300 and came with XP and 2GB ram, 120GB drive. The new one was just over $800 and the upgraded components are 250GB HD, 4GB ram and Vista HP. Both laptops look identical since they are the 6000 series, just slghtly different finish on the lid. Both were and still are problem free. Case fit and alignment is perfect with no lid warping as can happen with MBPs, especially the 17" models.

I ended up selling my MB and MBP a few weeks ago and am happily using my two HP notebooks above. The MB was barely 4 months old.

Paying all this extra money for an OS may be worth the extra money and being immune to 99% of the viruses out there may even make owning one worth the price but I'm really not so sure. OS X can crash just as much as Windows can and I had Safari crash on my iMac just yesterday. In fact the whole OS locked up when Safari did and I had to use the power button to reboot.

As we can see from any Apple forum, there are people having troubles with their computers and it really is no different than any other manufacturers support forums.

I'll be keeping my iMac and Mac pro. The iMac has XP loaded using Boot camp and I'm likely going to do the same thing with the Mac Pro tonight.

If Apple did sell a cheaper notebook, I would probably not think twice and buy one again But I still like the way Windows does things slightly better.

 

[Digital Skunk]

....

The big issue is going to be what you need it for, as opposed to why it's good for you. A lot of us can't work on Windows, it just can't keep up. Not trying to bash it at all, it's a great OS, but when it comes to integration a lot of us have to go through so many extra steps in Windows that it's just not worth it.

The only thing that makes Apple the premium in my eyes is the support. The fact that I can get support for all aspects of my machine and software and peripheral hardware at one place. Not to mention world wide support.

The Dells I once owned were weren't able to match it. And I do have VMWare installed on my 17" MBP but I am leaning towards taking it off since I only use it to run bad media software.

 

[Robertson1993]

I think it would be great for Apple to release a sub-notebook or 'netbook' in line with the eeepc, if it was below $500 id buy it

...Heck, why not make it multi-touch and give dell, HP, ASUS, etc. the shock of a lifetime, lol.

 

[gotzero]

I hope it is coming with the announcement tomorrow.

When Atom came out, there was speculation, even from Intel international employees that Apple was cooking something up, and so far we have heard nothing.

There are ton of netbooks right now, but the Atom ones are all essentially identical, leaving a huge opening for Apple to deliver a knockout.

I love my EEE 701, but it is upgrade time. I would love for it to be an Apple like my personal phone, laptop, and desktop...

 

[PowerFullMac]

Apple always overprice everything. I am typing this on a £700 laptop that only has a 2.1GHz CPU and 1GB of RAM!

I got royally screwed there, I will continue to do so when I buy Apple products, its just the way it is.

I like the wave of new "webbooks" coming around now, though, I saw one with Linux for £200 and a Windows one (with slightly higher specs) for £300 WITH THE NEW INTEL ATOM CPUS! Very cool and very handy! If Apple done one, I would certainly buy it, but unless they suddenly decide to stop ripping people off (which I doubt they will as they are getting away with it nicely) then they will not release one.

 

[CWallace]

That then, is my question: why do we talk about marketshare so much when it's very clear that there's a huge chunk of the PC market that Apple can't even touch?

It is not that Apple can't touch it, but that they choose not to touch it.

Apple may not do market studies, but they must have financial forecasting and modeling people.

Using Gartner's numbers, in Q1 of 2008, Apple shipped 1 million PCs in the US which was about 40% less then Acer, about one-quarter of HP and one-fifth of Dell. Apple's share rose 33%, HP was flat, Dell rose 16% and Acer lost 18%. Apple was able to surpass Acer in Q2 thanks to 38% growth for Apple and 20% loss for Acer. Apple shipped one-third the number of PCs in Q2 that HP did (as opposed to one-quarter) and one-fourth the number of PCs that Dell did (as opposed to one-fifth) even with Dell seeing 12% growth and HP 5.6%.

And again, if you look at margins, Apple is making 35% profit on each of those sales vs. 17% for Dell and a pitiful 4.7% for HP.

So in Q2 2008, Apple sold one third as many PCs as HP, but made over seven times as much money per PC. And they sold one-quarter as many PCs as Dell, but made twice as much money per PC.

And analysts are expecting even better results in sales for Apple in Q3 with margins still holding at 35%.

 

[PowerFullMac]

It is not that Apple can't touch it, but that they choose not to touch it.

Apple may not do market studies, but they must have financial forecasting and modeling people.

Using Gartner's numbers, in Q1 of 2008, Apple shipped 1 million PCs in the US which was about 40% less then Acer, about one-quarter of HP and one-fifth of Dell. Apple's share rose 33%, HP was flat, Dell rose 16% and Acer lost 18%. Apple was able to surpass Acer in Q2 thanks to 38% growth for Apple and 20% loss for Acer. Apple shipped one-third the number of PCs in Q2 that HP did (as opposed to one-quarter) and one-fourth the number of PCs that Dell did (as opposed to one-fifth) even with Dell seeing 12% growth and HP 5.6%.

And again, if you look at margins, Apple is making 35% profit on each of those sales vs. 17% for Dell and a pitiful 4.7% for HP.

So in Q2 2008, Apple sold one third as many PCs as HP, but made over seven times as much money per PC. And they sold one-quarter as many PCs as Dell, but made twice as much money per PC.

And analysts are expecting even better results in sales for Apple in Q3 with margins still holding at 35%.

The reason they make so much more money is because, as I stated above, they sell low spec computers (for the price) at a high spec price! I mean, look at the specs of this laptop compared to the MacBook! Its even £50 cheaper!!!!

As for the iPhone, I stand by the statement in my signature: "I would rather join the Church Of Scientology than buy the iPhone 3G, its better value for money"!

I mean, dont get me wrong, Apple's stuff is great... But even a huge Apple fanboy like me can see how overpriced they are!

 

[Digital Skunk]

It is not that Apple can't touch it, but that they choose not to touch it.

Apple may not do market studies, but they must have financial forecasting and modeling people.

Using Gartner's numbers, in Q1 of 2008, Apple shipped 1 million PCs in the US which was about 40% less then Acer, about one-quarter of HP and one-fifth of Dell. Apple's share rose 33%, HP was flat, Dell rose 16% and Acer lost 18%. Apple was able to surpass Acer in Q2 thanks to 38% growth for Apple and 20% loss for Acer. Apple shipped one-third the number of PCs in Q2 that HP did (as opposed to one-quarter) and one-fourth the number of PCs that Dell did (as opposed to one-fifth) even with Dell seeing 12% growth and HP 5.6%.

And again, if you look at margins, Apple is making 35% profit on each of those sales vs. 17% for Dell and a pitiful 4.7% for HP.

So in Q2 2008, Apple sold one third as many PCs as HP, but made over seven times as much money per PC. And they sold one-quarter as many PCs as Dell, but made twice as much money per PC.

And analysts are expecting even better results in sales for Apple in Q3 with margins still holding at 35%.

D@mn good post man! The best read on Macrumors since..... I can't even remember the last time I had a good read. Might copy and paste this!

...

Seriously speaking, Apple is about as overpriced as any manufacturer that's just using their name to get by. BMWs are probably the worst piece of Euro thrash that I have ever seen, or driven and they have the nerve to sell their cars for jacked up prices. I'd rather drive a Camry.

But people perceive them as being superior.

For me, I am paying extra for the OS and other software that, after working with the alternative enough to know, makes me work smarter and faster. I'd like to have a netbook and 19" SLI laptop and HP Blackbird 002, but Windows and Linux distros just don't cut it.

 

[CWallace]

The reason they make so much more money is because, as I stated above, they sell low spec computers (for the price) at a high spec price!

And you don't think Wintel manufacturers wish they could sell computers for a 35% profit margin? Do you not think their shareholders don't wish it?

Hell, I think it is more impressive that Apple has convinced us to actually pay all that "extra" cash for a Mac, personally.

And Sony used to be brutally expensive when they first launched the VAIO. I paid $2000 for a Pentium II 266MHz with 512MB of RAM and a 6GB HDD. And the CD drive was extra-cost and external only (via a PCMCIA card, no less!) because, like the MacBook Air, it was "too cool" to suffer the extra thickness necessary to put it inside. And to replace the RAM or the HDD, you had to disassemble the machine well beyond what you need to do even with the MacBook Pro. We're talking remove the LCD panel, pull off the sides. It was horrific.

As for the iPhone, I stand by the statement in my signature: "I would rather join the Church Of Scientology than buy the iPhone 3G, its better value for money"!

Well they both keep charging for continued use, so...

 

[NATO]

Apple doesn't have a OS that can run on cheap laptops like XP or Linux.

leopard is way too heavy for that. And strip down OSes like those on iPhone is not full feature at all.

Most people here seem to think that Leopard wouldn't really suit a device like an MSI Wind/Acer Aspire One/Dell Inspiron Mini9 etc, but I've got OS X running on an Acer Aspire One (in addition to a MacBook Pro, Mac Mini and my Mac Pro) as a geek project and I'm absolutely shocked how well it runs. It feels totally at home on it - very snappy and responsive. I'd actually go so far as to say it feels like a Mac Mini with an integrated 8.9" Display and keyboard/mouse. Even on such a small screen it looks gorgeous and there's more than enough screen space for Safari etc (moving the dock to the side to maximise vertical space of course).

Apple really need to consider such a netbook Mac, however I'm sure they're worried that it would cannibalise MacBook sales. That and it's not really ideal as a laptop to use 24/7, more a laptop for taking with you when you're out and about in addition to a desktop or larger laptop.

 

[CWallace]

That and it's not really ideal as a laptop to use 24/7, more a laptop for taking with you when you're out and about in addition to a desktop or larger laptop.

The MacBook Air is aimed at that segment and it is a better platform, especially for folks who need to get work done.

I just see too many trade-offs with the size and capacity of a netbook to make it a really viable platform for the type of computing done today. It strikes me more as something for the "FaceBook/Blogger" crowd to carry around so they can quickly update their websites in a more convenient package. And I know many folks carry them around for just that.

 

[PowerFullMac]

And you don't think Wintel manufacturers wish they could sell computers for a 35% profit margin? Do you not think their shareholders don't wish it?

Hell, I think it is more impressive that Apple has convinced us to actually pay all that "extra" cash for a Mac, personally.

I didnt say the other companies wish they could, what I said is that Apple is ripping their customers off.

Well they both keep charging for continued use, so...

Look at the new video link!

 

[gochichi]

Refurbished... that's a great point.

You know, I think it bugs most of us that Apple is expensive and taking FOREVER to update their products. The similarity between my PowerBook 15 and my MBP 15 is eerie, they look the same... at least the MBP's LED display is brighter.

There really isn't any competition coming from the PC manufactures... at least not that I can see (literally see, because Lenovo for instance has some very interesting products but I cannot SEE them because they are only available direct). In order to SEE a competing PC (they certainly exist), I'd have to special order it and in many cases the price would be similar to a Mac (sometimes slightly less, sometimes a lot more).

I think the last thing that Apple has to concern itself with is the $500.00 market, the biggest competition to Apple is Apple. I think the people that are going to buy a Mac, already did, and most of us are eager to renew it. Since they take nearly a year to refresh their products, a Mac with a new design starts off as a pretty good deal upon release and gets increasingly less attractive as time goes on because the price doesn't adjust, it's fixed (which does MARVELS for resale value).

Refurbished MacBooks at the $799.00 price point are hard to come by but they certainly do exist. They probably would have a 1.8Ghz processor (an "old" design)... still as fast as most PCs you could find at the same price level.

I like that Apple only sells current, decent processors with their laptops. I HATE the fact that PC laptops overwhelmingly come with processors that are comparable to those on a two-year old Mac, if that.

I think that the $999-1099 starting price for the MacBook is perfect. The MacBook as it stands today is lacking, but the price point works well. It needs an LED display, it needs the MacBook Air's bright 13" display... if they can do that... I'll buy it, period.

The last thing I want to see is more awkward laptops that don't run well on day one. My old Dell 12" laptop still works great for the basics, I don't care about the basics, I want above all to have a better display. Most $500 PCs can't provide a better display, and neither can the MacBook, at least not better in every way. Apple needs a product refresh desperately, but it's not because of the price of PCs... it's because the high price must be matched by a high quality and current product.

 

[NSNick]

Macbooks are already low end notebooks

 

[shizzlegtx]

It's interesting to note:

o Hard Drive Size: 320 GB
o Processor Brand: INTEL
o Processor Series: Core 2 Duo
o Installed Memory: 3072 MB
o Screen Size: 15.4" Widescreen
o Operating System: Windows Vista Home Premium


Which is a gateway, for $599 at Office Max. Now, Windows Vista HP is as capable as OS X in many ways, and these specs are higher end then the Lowest Macbook.

I have a Macbook, but why do they cost $1099 and that Gateway is nearly half the cost? The Processor is the same, it has more memory, a bigger hardrive, bigger screen and a comparable OS. Not to mention it burns DVD's which the low end Macbook does not.

Some one please give me a real answer and not an Apple fanboy response of "Apple has higher quality parts" because the parts in this case are the same if not of higher quality.

 

[Berlepsch]

I have a Macbook, but why do they cost $1099 and that Gateway is nearly half the cost? The Processor is the same, it has more memory, a bigger hardrive, bigger screen and a comparable OS. Not to mention it burns DVD's which the low end Macbook does not.

Some one please give me a real answer and not an Apple fanboy response of "Apple has higher quality parts" because the parts in this case are the same if not of higher quality.

To build a good notebook, you have to find a compromise between three contrasting factors - speed, weight, and battery life. In my experience, PC notebooks with a good balance of these factors are sold for prices comparable with Apple's models.

If you are satisfied with a "2 out of 3" or "1 of 3 is enough" solution, you can get a Windows laptop for considerably less money. But you will always be on the hunt for a wall plug, or have something heavy dragging your shoulders, or simply be waiting for the desktop to finish loading until late in the afternoon.