The popularity of the blessed curse of the PC industry, the netbooks, just keeps on rising. DisplaySearch has published it latest quarterly report on the state of the notebook market, and conclude that netbook popularity is rising, but at the cost of revenues.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2007-07-27
Member since:
2009-08-18
A constant race to the bottom.
It's factors such as this that cause me to put companies who own their platform and develop proprietary technologies to differentiate their products on a pedestal as they aren't forced to comply with the race towards the bottom business model that companies who's companies are based on an "open" architecture are so often forced to do.
Unfortunately, there are few of them left anymore but its not a coincidence that those that are still around that can develop a great product are thriving.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-26
Unfortunately, there are few of them left anymore but its not a coincidence that those that are still around that can develop a great product are thriving.
Are you referring to... Sony?
My first thought was Apple, but clearly they're not developing on a closed architecture and proprietary technology any longer.
Member since:2009-08-18
Apple is developing on an open platform with proprietary elements. I never said proprietary hardware. I was speaking of companies that own their platform.
And Sony is among them as far as their gaming units are concerned but so too is Apple with the iPhone, the iPod, the Apple TV and the Mac.
Member since:2006-01-26
Well, in Apple's case the "race to the bottom" as you call it is indeed causing the price of commodity components they use to go down - even for the iPhone... so technically, it's a win-win all around.
So I'll feel good knowing that my purchase of aggressively-priced hardware is helping you save money on your purchase of Apple hardware
Same applies to Sony as well... take their new slimline PS3 for example, I'm fairly certain that the market for cheaper components has drive size and cost down to the point where they can release a smaller, cheaper version, giving the consumer a small discount to make it seem like a bonus, while they are able to make larger profit margins as a result.
Member since:2009-08-18
"Well, in Apple's case the "race to the bottom" as you call it is indeed causing the price of commodity components they use to go down - even for the iPhone... so technically, it's a win-win all around."
Its a win for the consumer albeit only superficially. From our perspective we (we as consumers of computers) just see the same components getting smaller and faster at a lower price.
Smaller and faster are really the only things fueling the PC industry's upgrade cycle. If these companies had the R&D money to truly differentiate their product we would have some really unique options to choose from. Unfortunately the vicious cycle of race to the bottom restricts that from happening. But we don't know any better because we can't cry about not having what was never presented to us. So no, I disagree with your pretense that its a win all the way around.
"So I'll feel good knowing that my purchase of aggressively-priced hardware is helping you save money on your purchase of Apple hardware"
By standardizing on commodity PC hardware, Apple turned the PC industry main selling point against Apple on its head. By maintaining control of their own platform, they get all the benefit of standardized PC components and the price benefits that go along with them while retaining all the benefits of owning their own platform thereby not having to follow the PC industry's race to the bottom. Apple is a good example of this as their profit margins on computers alone allow them to match those of companies that sell 3-4x what they do.
For the record, its not by selling the same gear at higher prices... a theme that seems to be the mantra of nearly all those that maintain and comment on this site. Rather, its by setting barriers to entry. For example. If my budget for a computer is $500. Apple forces you to pony up $100 you weren't initially inclined to spend to buy into the platform. They also give you more bundled software and a higher-end OS as compared to the Windows/PC hardware equivalent as an added bonus.
"Same applies to Sony as well... take their new slimline PS3 for example, I'm fairly certain that the market for cheaper components has drive size and cost down to the point where they can release a smaller, cheaper version, giving the consumer a small discount to make it seem like a bonus, while they are able to make larger profit margins as a result."
Sony, like Apple is benefitting from smaller components but their particular components aren't standardize like they are on a PC. Their hardware structure might best be associated with Apple's before the Intel transition. Either way, they too own their own platform and are reaping the benefits of it.
Member since:2005-07-11
It's factors such as this that cause me to put companies who own their platform and develop proprietary technologies to differentiate their products on a pedestal as they aren't forced to comply with the race towards the bottom business model that companies who's companies are based on an "open" architecture are so often forced to do.
Unfortunately, there are few of them left anymore but its not a coincidence that those that are still around that can develop a great product are thriving.
Unfortunately, then you are stuck buying *everything* from that vendor. For example, I used to like Sony products, as they tended to be of high quality and well-integrated. But then they started nickle-and-diming you by making their own version of a Firewire port (iLink), and their own versions of USB ports, and then their own proprietary connector port, forcing you to buy even something as simple as a USB cable from them, at a significant markup, of course.
The beauty of an open architecture is that parts are interchangeable. And generally not expensive. And the products tend to be interoperable with products from other vendors.
There's nothing worse than taking your phone/mp3 player/whatever over to your buddy's house, only to find out you left your VendorX cable at home, so you can't connect to his phone/computer/tv/whatever.
Make beautiful software, make beautiful hardware, just don't use either to lock me in to your products!!
Member since:2009-08-18
Personally I have no problems buying from a single vendor as long as they continue to develop great products. Sony is definitely one of these companies but like you said they also keep trying to standardize on connection methods and formats after a standard has already populated itself. If they were to ever manage to make the standards rather than fight them I would have no problem buying from them as a single vendor.
One of the definite positives relating to the aforementioned companies creating proprietary technologies is that they aren't forced to follow that race to the bottom business model I mentioned earlier which allows them to sell on differentiated unique features that gain them increased profit to allow them to continue to develop more of these differentiated features.
Member since:
2009-02-19
Help me out here: for the revenue in 2009 Q1, the "combined" figure is off by one (2+1 != 2). For Q2, the "combined" is just the notebook revenues; they didn't even add the netbook revenues in. Do I not understand the data they're trying to present, or did somebody really mess that chart up?
Member since:
2006-03-23
Seems the OP has an issue with netbooks, but why exactly?
Here I sit in Denver International, my flight delayed. I'm reading this website on the free wireless in the airport. My battery will last all night and the whole flight too. I paid $400 for the thing, travel all over with it and don't have the sore shoulder my notebook gives me.
My wife was so jealous of my netbook I bought her one, and my mom bought one too.
They're selling like crazy because PEOPLE LOVE THEM, they are what laptops aspired to be: truely portable, all-day on batteries, powerful enough to do most of what we want, and cheap.
Sure, I'm not writing software on it or Photoshopping, but so what, I have powerful desktops at home and work for that, and GoToMyPC makes it easy for me to do the hard stuff from my netbook from anywhere (well, maybe not photoshop 
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:
2008-11-11
Member since:
2006-11-24
if the market does not want PCs, then there is no point in making any.
Think horse carriages. When cars became the prevailant form of transport, the owners of horse carriages were screaming - of course. But who cares? Like nobody? - There is three options for PC makers:
1) Stop making PCs, get a new hobby altogether instead.
2) Stop making PCs, make netbooks and other more fashionable items instead.
3) Keep making PCs in such a way that people are still interested in buying them.
Hey wait, did I just sum up the workings of a free market in three easy to remember bullet points? Some PC makers defo need to read Osnews forums more often!
Member since:2007-02-17
Think horse carriages. When cars became the prevailant form of transport, the owners of horse carriages were screaming - of course. But who cares? Like nobody? - There is three options for PC makers:
1) Stop making PCs, get a new hobby altogether instead.
2) Stop making PCs, make netbooks and other more fashionable items instead.
3) Keep making PCs in such a way that people are still interested in buying them.
Hey wait, did I just sum up the workings of a free market in three easy to remember bullet points? Some PC makers defo need to read Osnews forums more often!
Beautiful. Spot on. Suppliers need to supply whatever people want and need, and not whatever would make suppliers a fatter profit.
Now if we could only get people apply this same sensible thinking to the OS and application software as well.
Edited 2009-10-09 10:19 UTC
Member since:2009-08-18
"Beautiful. Spot on. Suppliers need to supply whatever people want and need, and not whatever would make suppliers a fatter profit."
Sometimes the public doesn't know what it needs until you give it to them. A good example of this is multitouch.
Without it, I was very content. With it, I'm even more so. But to get multi-touch, it require some research and development.... something that is difficult to fund when you're at a constant race towards the bottom profit-wise.
Multi-touch may not be the most ideal example because it's development wasn't designed for a single company's specific product. but you get the idea.
Companies making profits... even large, or even gigantic ones are not a bad thing.
If that company applies some of those profits to increased R&D, then things only get better.
Edited 2009-10-09 20:27 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
If that company applies some of those profits to increased R&D, then things only get better.
This is indeed normally the case.
However, when a situation arises that a company's R&D effort is all directed at: eliminating competition; making it impossible for cheaper & better products to get a foothold in the market; trying to make it illegal for competitors to offer cheaper new alternative products; squeezing more money out of people for functionality they need that the company had ALREADY recouped the R&D investment for by bundling in extras that people don't need and which only make their machines slower, requiring them to get new machines ...
when all that starts to happen then things only get worse.
http://slashdot.org/story/09/10/09/215235/Microsoft-Moves-To-Patent...
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/10/0124227/Open-Source-Could-H...
Edited 2009-10-11 08:13 UTC
Member since:2009-05-20
Care to explain once again what makes these so-called netbooks so different from so-called personal computers?
From what I see, there is absolutely no difference except (a) size, (b) price, (c) power consumption, (d) either low performing or low-quality internal parts.
All points are highly welcome, but at the end, these are just PCs, smaller but still.
Member since:2005-08-28
I think the differentiation between a netbook and a notebook is that the netbook is biased toward small and cheap (and, increasingly, long battery life) while normal laptops are focused on some combination of performance, thinness, and features.
Of course, that's all a bit vague; if people didn't care about Netbook performance we wouldn't have the N280 and Ion; if people didn't care about inexpensive or long battery life on laptops we wouldn't have the Acer Timeline series or the ASUS Ux0 series.
For now I think the only real distinction is whether they're allowed to have Windows XP installed by Microsoft's definition. I suspect the real definition is more based on how the manufacturer arrived at the specs and marketing campaign, than what the specs actually are.
