Netbooks are shit. Accept that.

They have tiny processors, low amounts of RAM, small hard drives, literally no disc drive, 1-2 USB ports, and that's pretty much it, unless you pay several hundred dollars more.

For years, all we have been doing, is innovating. We built bigger, better, faster, smarter computers every day.

But then, netbooks were born.

Netbooks are a disease plaguing the computer industry.
They have next to no profit margin. By that notion, they should have been dumped from the git-go. However, due to the sheer volume of people buying them, companies do manage to pull a decent profit from them. Netbooks are terrible computers. If for no other reason, they are good enough. People see a netbook and say to themselves, "Wow, this computer is $300, I can afford that and if I can afford that, then it's good enough for me." When this is the consumer, innovation stops.

We've been stuck with the same old processors we had two whole years ago.

The only new processor that I'm aware to come out of Intel in the past year is the Nehalem.

A dual quad-core processor commissioned by Apple for it's newest Mac Pro.

keyword:Apple

Why Apple?
Apple hates netbooks.

Why does Apple hate netbooks?

myself said:

Believe it or not, Apple isn't here to beat out IBM and Microsoft.
They aren't here to sell the most computers.
They aren't here to make billions upon billions of dollars every year.

Apple is here to build better computers.
They have always been here to build better computers.

Ever since the Apple I back in 1975.

They don't care if they have .01% market share, or if they have the other 99.9%.

But they do care that they have the best computer.

They strive to build better software and provide better hardware.

A perfect example.
The iPhone.

For the record, I'm currently in favour of the Palm Pre, but that's irrelevant.

The iPhone was first announced to the public at Mac World in January of 2007.

At that point in time, the cutting edge of cell phone technology was the magically thin, RAZR.

Okay, they were cell phones, we take pictures, make calls, text with it, etc. The same stuff that we did ten years prior (basically), so what?

The iPhone, changed all of that.


We still did those same things when the iPhone came out, but it was certainly more fun, and more innovative.

I'm not saying that the iPhone created the "smart phone" market, because it didn't, but until that point, smart phones were heavy, weird, clunky, hard-to-use, business toys used by rich New Yorkers. No one else cared about them.

When the iPhone came out, it was the smart phone for the rest of us.
It was simple, easy-to-use, pretty light, and had higher hardware specs than most other smart phones (I'm not sure of the actual specs on the first generation iPhone (anyone is welcome to clarify). It was undeniably the best phone on the market.

And until not two months ago, it was still a googleplex ahead of any other phone.

By the way I'm making it sound, it should be written into law that the iPhone be the only phone to ever be used.

But it's not.
Why?

Because when one tree catches fire, so do all of the ones around it. Other cell phone makers took after Apple and started rebuilding the design of their cell phone lines.

Using better hardware, writing better software for their phones, and ever since, the whole market has continued to innovate. Each provider has reached a point where they're working in their own direction to developing phones. Until one eventually caught up to the iPhone. Who you ask? Why none other than the comatose Palm.

Why did Palm catch up?
Because Palm didn't build a phone out of leftover hardware from their last line, snazz up it's software and the package it. Like everybody else was doing every two months.

No, they spent two years building this one phone.
This one phone, ties with the iPhone as the most powerful phone ever built.

Both with matching specs:
Processor: Samsung ARM - 600MHz
RAM: 256MB

Their hard drive sizes differ, but that's not mission critical.

The closest phones are still using the last generation of ARM processors running at 433MHz.

What is the point of this?
Why is it relevant to the topic?

Because it represents innovation.

The strive to build better machines.

Not static hardware running an out-dated operating system (Don't say Windows XP isn't out-dated, by definition, it is).

Granted, netbooks are cheap alternatives to higher end notebooks which many people can't afford, myself being one. But that's not the point of computers. The point isn't for everyone to have one.

They concept of a computer isn't for people to have something to play with in their spare time. They are tools, they always have been and always will be. Tools, by nature, improve over time.

Netbooks defy the most basic and important law of science.

All ecosystems, in order to survive, must expand in size and volume.

Netbooks do not expand. Their hardware is static. It is not getting any better.

__________________________

General computer sales have dropped drastically over the past year. Though this is greatly due to the state of the economy, it also lays fault in the companies who make the netbooks. For making netbooks.

The real point of that last snippet, was to point out the fact that Apple, the only hardware vendor in Western world who doesn't have at least one netbook on the market, is selling more computers than any other vendor in North America. And their sales continue to increase.

Please remember, this is Apple, the guys with the $3000 laptops? How does a company sell more of these $3000 laptops, than all of it's competition selling $300 laptops? This lies more with-in Apple itself, with marketing, self-image, etc., but the point is, Apple has integrity. They aren't afraid to lose out on tens of millions of dollars by not producing their own netbooks if it mean they are making better computers. Apple has literally said, and I quote, from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself, word-for-word, "Netbooks are garbage."

And that's exactly what they are. Garbage.

So, back to the cheap alternatives topic.

I pose a query.
How did people get a cheap computer when they couldn't afford an expensive new one, before netbooks were an option?

They bought a used computer.

Not one month ago, I bought a Dell Inspiron 1521 off of my cousin.

I spent $200 dollars on it. It's specs exceed those of any netbook available, that I'm aware of.
With a 1.8GHz AMD64 Athlon X2 processor, 4GB or RAM and an 80GB hard drive. This computer came into existence almost three years ago.
The closest netbooks have gotten, while staying in the $300-500 range, is a 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor, with 2GB of RAM and a 20GB (give or take) hard drive.

I'm going to say it again.
I spent just $200 on my laptop
To my knowledge, only two or three netbooks are priced at $200 and you're required to sign a contract to use Verizon or Sprints' mobile networks. Required.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that I just might have gotten a slightly better deal than all of those people buying netbooks.


I will end by saying it again, netbooks are shit.