Philoking.com

The Technologizer has an interesting post today about The War Against Netbooks. In reading it I have a few points to make, but probably not the points you might think.

Are the sales numbers real?

I know you might have a problem thinking the word disposable applies to computers, but in the world of computers, netbooks are as close to disposable as you can get. Coming from someone who has bought and then sold a netbook (so has my wife) I wonder what the numbers would look like if you changed the metric from “Netbooks Sold” to “Netbooks Usage.”

When I look at my web analytics based on screen resolution, I see something interesting. First let’s take a look at netbook screen resolutions (This is the top 5 best selling netbooks via BestBuy.com, excluding duplicates in different colors):

*Although Gateway calls this a netbook, it has a 64-bit Athlon processor, 2GB of Ram and an 11.6” display, I would argue this is a laptop.

So the basic thing we learn is that the common netbook screen resolution is around 1024×600. So let’s look at the browser statistics for my website for the last 3 months, by screen resolution:

That’s 44,572 unique visitors, and netbooks aren’t in the top 10. If we expand it out to the entire 290 resolutions that visited my website in the last 3 months, 1024×600 came in 15th with 379 visits. For those math nerds out there, that’s .8% of my readers read on a netbook.

What is a netbook?

Let’s be frank for a second. A netbook is a cheap ass computer. They have underpowered CPUs, not only small, but very low resolution displays, anemic ram, slow hard drives, and are usually made out of extremely cheaply made plastic cases. In my experience, defining charactaristics are small, nearly unusable touch pads, cheap and unreliable touchpad buttons, poor fit and finish (web cams not quite aligned to the holes) and in my opinion, very limited use.

I purchased an MSI Wind for my wife and I both, and less than 4 months, I sold it to a friend and bought a $579 HP laptop at Best Buy that I am infinitely more happy with.

The argument that Harry McCracken (man that’s gotta be a fake name!) makes is that Microsoft and Intel do not have the right to qualify what a netbook is. I say they do. If the computer manufacturers want to reduce the quality of PCs this far, and limit their usefulness this much, why is Microsoft obligated to provide their flagship versions of their operating system at way below market value to laptop and desktop users?

Why should intel be forced to give away processors that would sell at higher prices for laptops just to allow PC makers to produce cheap crap computers.

I don’t buy the logic and I won’t buy another netbook. To me the iPhone is a much more useful “cheap” computer.

As with many other conversations I have had on these types of topics lately, I come to one conclusion. It’s a good thing the people who write these articles, and leave the anti-Microsoft and anti-Intel comments do not have to actually run businesses.

What would happen if someone who made settings in aluminum went after the diamond manufacturers to sell diamonds at zirconium prices so they could sell their rings cheaper? It makes as much sense. Your product is your source of income, protecting the value of it is hopefully your #1 priority.

The end result

What do I think of netbooks? Obviously not much, but I have a different reason. What I have noticed, is that netbooks have seriously lowered the bar for what is acceptable build quality. Now that lower bar is creeping into laptops. Just like the eMachines craze a half dozen years ago crept into the Gateway and Dell lines, the bargain basement machines show companies that consumers as a whole aren’t as discerning as we might hope.

That allows them to consistently use lower quality parts, cheaper labor to build them, and operate at profit margins that only continue that cycle until we find ourselves pushed towards Apple or boutique PC manufacturers to get machines that won’t fall apart in a year.