While we’re on the subject of netbooks today, I ran across a story by Ars Technica’s Erica Sadun, who writes for Ars’ Infinite Loop (Apple) section. She poses that Apple already sells a netbook: the iPod Touch and the iPhone. I’ve heard many people make this claim before (including Steve Jobs himself), but I find it very hard to see the iPod Touch and the iPhone as netbooks.
There are various definitions out there when it comes to the term netbook. Shaun chooses the one handled by Best Buy, the large US retailer. “A netbook is a streamlined mobile device designed for the Internet, so you can stay connected on the go. Get up-to-date news, the latest scores and weather information, access your e-mail and social networking sites, and enjoy digital videos, photos and music. Netbooks may look like laptops, but they don’t have the full capabilities of a computer. Instead, a netbook specializes in mobility and the Web, so it’s great for travel or as a supplement to your main PC.” In her story, Shaun took out the bit about netbooks looking like laptops, but okay. She says that the iPhone/Touch meet these criteria.
She may have a point, but that’s just one definition of a netbook, and if you look around the Best Buy netbook section, you’ll see that the devices listed there are all just small laptops anyway. A definition that I personally find much more accurate is the one handled by Wikipedia, which reads: “A netbook is a light-weight, low-cost, energy-efficient, highly portable laptop that achieves these parameters by offering fewer features, less processing power and reduced ability to run resource-intensive operating systems (e.g., Windows Vista). Suitable for web browsing, email, and general purpose applications, netbooks are targeted increasingly at users accessing web-based applications (also known as Cloud computing) – which require a less powerful client computer.”
As you can see, both definitions actually stress the fact that we’re still talking about laptops – small laptops maybe, but laptops nonetheless. I think this is what sets the netbook apart from other mobile devices, such as mobile phones and mobile internet devices. A netbook is a scaled-down laptop – the iPhone is scaled-up smartphone.
The things that set the iPhone and iPod Touch apart from the netbook are quite numerous. Most obviously, they lack a proper keyboard. No matter how iPhone users boast about the efficiency of the on-screen keyboard, it can never be as effective as a real keyboard. Additionally, it covers a part of the already small screen (compared to 9″-10″ netbooks, that is). Another problem is the small screen itself, for which websites aren’t designed. The iPhone’s browser is quite gracious and effective at mitigating this problem, but the experience it offers simply cannot compare favourably to browsing the web on a netbook. As a final hardware issue, netbooks powered by an Intel Atom processor, and carrying 1GB-1.5GB of RAM blow the iPhone out of the water when it comes to performance.
There are also many software issues that set the iPhone/Touch apart from a proper netbook. For instance, the iPhone cannot multitask. More importantly, however, the iPhone lacks Flash and Java. Even though these technologies might not be liked by many of us OSAlert readers (me included), it’s hard to deny the fact that they have become an integral part of the web experience. Many websites implement Flash video, and the iPhone can’t handle this. The full web – sure, except for Flash and Java content. The netbook doesn’t suffer from this problem at all: you really get the full web.
Don’t get me wrong, though: the iPhone and the Touch are magnificent devices in their own right. The have blown away the competition, and raised the bar for all smartphones out there. However, that doesn’t mean we should overestimate the capabilities of these devices. If I were to make a list of portable computing devices, starting with least powerful, and ending with most powerful, this is what I would end up with:
Feature phone – smartphone – MID – netbook – ultra-portable laptop (MacBook Air, etc.) – normal laptop.
As far as I’m concerned, the iPhone/Touch stand somewhere in between the smartphone and the MID.
The iPhone and Touch are magnificent devices, but let’s remain reasonable, shall we?
my net book with 160gb hd.. has tons of XP progams, docs, games, MP3s, some movies and MSoffice2003…
Can an ipod do that ? Why buy an Ipod or Iphone when
my netbook can do all this while an Iphone cant….
Besides … do i really need a phone every breathing
hour in my life. I grew up when phones were a home appliance.. its still a home appliance. Sorry Steve!
So you’re saying that a Netbook running Linux can’t be called a Netbook because it doesn’t run Microsoft software?
Where, exactly, did you come up with that idea? I don’t see the connection.
The post I replied to is complaining that an iPhone can’t be called a Netbook because it won’t run his XP programs.
I think you read too much into that. Though the OP was referring to XP it was really a much more general point: the software run by the OP’s netbook is the same software run by a typical x86-based system.
So if someone brought out a iPhone port of openoffice.org would it be a netbook the? .It already has a webbrowser and email, which other bit of software is it missing, does google docs work with them, do they count as the ‘missing software’ ?
Isn’t it a bit like saying a Linux box is not an PC becuae it doesn’t run Photoshop (ignoring WINE for a second).
It seems to me no one has a real arguement against the iPhone / iPod Touch being a netbook without restricting the definition of what a netbook is to deliberately exclude Apple devices,
I can’t speak for the iPhone, but my PDA can and that’s a few years old now.
As I said in an earlier post – I think the difference is down to ergonomics (appolagies for the poor spelling) rather than software.
One device is designed to be opperated from the palm and the other from the lap / tabletop.
iPod touch is not a Netbook. But that does not necessarily mean there is not a reason to buy it. Tons of reasons.
If the phone aspect of the iPhone offends you so much, you can either buy an iPod touch or simply turn off the phone function on your iPhone when not at home.
My cell phone is turned on and with me 24/7, that doesn’t in any way mean I’m willing to accept calls 24/7. Some times having access to phone when you’re out of the house is really quite handy.
ok, so this the excuse for Apple not weighing on the the netbook market. Well lets face it even if they did they’d want a premium for their netbook.
I found it rather funny ipod touch and a iphone classed as a netbook, I guess thats one way of saying we dont have a answer to this market.
The could pull a sony “netbooks are dangerous for our bottom line so lets make a droolworthy $900 one”
Give me a macbook air like casing with a 9″ screen, a blazing fast SSD drive, 6-7 hour battery life, and the same sort of touchscreen technology found in the iPhone and Apple can have my $900.
Except that even sony has reasonable margins. with device equivalent to sony’s, apple would charge at least an extra $100
First with regards to the iPhone I would argue that it is not even a phone. Why call something by one of the functions it has? I believe it is more appropriate to be identified as a souped up PDA with a cellular application.
The device that I believe would fit the Wikipedia definition, though yet not in the classic netbook form, would be the Nokia N800/N810, the latter having a hardware keyboard. These devices can run a full OS with multitasking and with a screen res of 800×480 can connect to a bluetooth keyboard. The option to disconnect the keyboard on a classic styled netbook is not available. Therefore, I would argue that these Nokias are even more flexible and portable. KDE anyone?
Edited 2009-01-13 23:45 UTC
That a netbook running Haiku/BeOS isn’t really a notebook because it doesn’t support Flash or Java, right?
Or, for that matter, a smaller device that still has a PC laptop resolution that uses a touchscreen only, also can’t be claimed as a netbook, because it doesn’t have a tactile keyboard, is that also true?
Absolutely, there are disadvantages to any touchscreen keyboard of any type when it comes to tactile feedback, which (for most people) will tend to slow people down. Then again, how many people can honestly type as fast on a keyboard the size you find on a PDA or phone mutant, as they can type on a full-size computer keyboard? I’m guessing: none, if even only by a small margin.
But, for the portable market, there are also disadvantages to the tactile physical keyboard that a touchscreen doesn’t have: for one, the bulk to make it work and worth bothering with, and two, you can’t readily reconfigure a physical keyboard to do exactly what you want for layout.
I won’t try to say the iPhone/iPod Touch qualifies as a netbook, but honestly, for those that don’t want to constantly be carrying things around that require an extra bag, they can be quite effective, while the added bulk (even though it isn’t much) and the need to recharge every so often (in comparison to the freedom of the iPhone/iPod Touch) and carry around cords as a result definitely puts them in a useful category all their own, away from the netbook. In other words, I don’t see either one eating the market share of the other: if a full-sized computer is what’s needed for the task, people aren’t likely to pop out something like an iPhone, but if it isn’t absolutely needed, a netbook is just more bother than it’s worth.
While I agree with much of what you say in your post, I do have to point out that the analogy used here breaks down to quickly too be useful.
The important difference is that the netbook in question is not incapable of using Flash/Java/etc. It’s the operating system you’ve installed on it. If you install LoseTheOS on something, you lose the right to bitch about your computer not being able to run Firefox.
And perhaps that’s an important distinction between the iPhone/iPod and real netbooks, one that no-one has mentioned yet – a true netbook is capable of running a variety of OSes. The original argument stated it well: a netbook is more of a scaled down PC, and the iPhone is more of a scaled up smartphone.
It just seems like much ado about nothing really…
Because compact cars and motorcycles are really pretty much the same thing.
Maybe not. Who cares?
Words do not have absolute, universal meanings, which can be a little disconcerting to the ultra-rational. iPhones are so similar to netbooks, it makes sense to call them netbooks sometimes. And even if it doesn’t make sense, it hardly deserves its own article on OSAlert.
Ultra-rational my ass!
Apple would call dog doo on a stick a netbook if that helped them make more money.
Is the Messerschmitt KR175 a compact car or a motorcycle?
It’s a trike with a carapace, it’s a low-spec 1950s commuter vehicle, it’s a collector’s piece, it’s an example of post-war German engineering, it’s a scooter, apparently an improvement on an invalid car, and it’s sort of cute.
Utility, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder
You dont see people arguing about compact cars and motorcycles being the same though do you…yet they are about the stupid phone and the stupid teeny notebook. So your point was?
Its not that the iPhone can’t handle Flash and Java its that Apple doesn;t want to handle Flash and Java and I say good on them. Is Flash and Java support what people consider a superior web experience? I don’t, I don’t even fin them necessary (especially Java) and if video sites like Hulu would gt their ct together, I wouldn’t need flash at all on my Mac. For all of the sites I visit regurlarly (including this one) its a pretty damn decent experience on the iPhone.
I find it silly to argue over the definition of what a netbook is. The iPhone is more of a MID and a brilliant one at that.
Maybe arguably not a “superior web experience” but Flash is required these days to have a reasonable web experience and to not include Flash as part of the iPhone is rediculous.
Really? And here I have a Flash blocker installed in my web browser so I can AVOID that “reasonable” web experience.
Netbook is absolutely nothing but a buzzword.
It make small laptop looks cool.
For some user and iPhone/touch/N810 will be a perfect fit, others will find more value in a, small but cooler than a notebook, notebook. If it’s a netbook or not, what’s the deal?
As for the “battery efficient”, most netbook have 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 hours battery life. How is that more efficient than notebook? I have the same working time on my Macbook pro with a more powerfull cpu and a 6″ bigger screen. Yes the battery is smaller, but the ratio isn’t better.
Edited 2009-01-14 01:04 UTC
There is only one Netbook:
http://www.psionplace.com/hardware/Psion-Netbook-2000-09-05-psion-p…
However, I think the discussion basically comes down to form factor. They’re all computers of some description, they’re just in different boxes.
Here’s a question: Is the N97 a Netbook?
I like what you did there… EPOCH32 vs Symbian… well, no, unless Nokia licensed the term prom Psion, I guess. It’s certainly the logical successor, but then there have been a lot of Symbian phones recently that could also fit the bill.
This “story” is ridiculous. Obviously the term netbook still doesn’t have a clear cut definition, so the author merely posits their own, and that’s the basis of the rest of the article.
So…by the author’s reasoning, a G1 should count as a netbook, while an iPhone does not simply because one has a hardware keyboard, and the other does not. As for flash and java…that’s already been discussed thoroughly in other threads above.
How about I make my own random suggestion (don’t worry it has just as much weight as the author’s). An iPhone/Android “smart-phone” is really just a miniture PC that can fit in your pocket and just so happens to work as a phone as well. The ambiguous “netbook” class of laptops, UMPCs/MIDs and the like are merely a cheap trend that floats between an iPhone/Android class smart phone and a full fledged laptop. How’s that?
I could go on…but I already have here: http://zephyrxero.blogspot.com/2009/01/netbooks-umpcs-and-like-will…
Edited 2009-01-14 01:26 UTC
This debate is a bit pointless… Consumers do not really care in what category their precious little toys
is categorized… What’s most important is: They just works! (no pun intended)
I believe that for all active web-browsing (i.e. commenting on osnews) you are far better off with a laptop)
For all passive browsing (i.e. Just reading and not contributing to the overall knowledge of mankind), you can use with an iPhone or iPod touch.
So, I am using my MacBook to write this comment but I read the original story on my iPod Touch.
Depends on the size of your hands.
I believe Thom has stated that he has small hands and zero problems typing on his aspire one.
I think the size of my hands is about average and I don’t really have trouble typing on the same model (keyboard wise). A slightly bigger keyboard wouldn’t hurt but it’s far from necessary.
Maybe I take a 10-20% speed hit but I can touchtype and that’s what really makes or breaks a product for me.
Sorry if I misled you… I was refering to the fact that it is a bit hard to write some complex text with an iPhone/iPod despite what Apple may want to make you believe.
In that regard, you need a Laptop (I’d like to say that a Netbook IS a laptop for me… Just an underpowered one)
Sorry no, Flash is *not* part of the web. It is *not* a W3 standard, and has no place on the real web, the one envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee, the one that brings information to all and everyone regardless their platform. Period.
Uh, it’s on the real web. lots of content is posted on the net using flash. You can’t define something as not part of the web just because you don’t like it. By your criteria the web cannot be extended without W3C blessing, and if that was the case, we wouldn’t have half of the goodness we have now.
Streaming video, music, flash, javascript (which started out life as a proprietary extension developed by Netscape) even ActiveX force change and growth. A lot of the extensions in HTML and XHTML are to try and give the web capabilities that proprietary bits have been providing. Oh, and Tim Berners-Lee invented a text and static image web, even cgi came later.
Move forward, don’t live in the past.
The web is supposed to be about freedom and not proprietary closed source plugins such as flash, quicktime or activeX.
And this is where this little thing called “reality” comes into play. These plugins and extensions fill a need not filled by anything else at the time of their introduction or not even now.
As someone above said, lots of good stuff came out of proprietary technologies, and cited JavaScript as an example.
Flash is also great because, let’s face it: there are things on the web that can’t be done without Flash at the moment. Flash is not only about the banners as some web purists would have you believe. And let’s not forget that Flash sparked a lot of development in SVG implementation in major browsers.
Quicktime and Flash video lead to the introduction of proper media support in HTML5
And if it wasn’t for ActiveX we might not have AJAX now (Microsoft introduced the XMLHttpRequest object in 1999).
So, as you can see, a lot of advancement was achieved by competitors adopting and improving each other’s extensions.
As for W3C, I don’t think they move fast enough and seem incapable to drive innovation and raise enough support among browser developers.
Please understand that most (almost all) people want first a functional web and are not interested in open source, freedom as in whatever or other purely theoretical issue.
So, keep your image and text web (use NoScript, don’t install Flash, Quicktime, Java etc, hell, even better – also block the images) and I’ll keep my fully featured web. No one’s forcing on you things you don’t want.
Edited 2009-01-14 09:21 UTC
who said the web was about freedom? It’s about information exchange.
My first thought was that you can’t consider iPhones/iPods as netbooks because they’re not general PCs, something which netbooks are a subcategory of. You can’t perform general tasks on an iPhone/iPod, such as move files wherever you like, install whatever software you like, and run a compiler to build new software.
That alone rules out the netbook category. The form factor is another matter altogether.
I don’t understand the confusion people are having:
Netbooks are small laptops.
PDAs are palmtops.
So what if the iPhone packs a great deal of functionality into a small device – so does my PDA!
I have MS Office, wifi and a few different web-browsers. I can play MP3s, DivXs, all sorts. It has a PDF reader, terminal server client and even 3D games like Tomb Raider.
However it’s still a PDA as it sits in my palm and not on my lap.
So in short – yes it’s impressive what comes in small packages these days, but if it sits in the palm of your hand then it’s a PDA and not a laptop/netbook.
As the saying goes: “you can teach a cat to bark, but it’s still a cat.”
All this huffing and puffing from Apple is nothing more than marketing.
Edited 2009-01-14 03:22 UTC
I think the iPod Touch can be considered a netbook – I certainly use it that way myself. Heck, I don’t even need to take a laptop with me on trips – just bring my iPod Touch, and I can stay in contact with folks, pass the time with fun games, listen to music, type to-do lists, view all sorts of files, jot down notes, watch movies, thumb through photos, check email, surf the web, add events to my calendar, etc, etc… It’s a fun device and better designed than any netbook I’ve come across at this point.
It’s quite far fetch to say that an iPhone is a netbook. fundamentally a smart phone and a small laptop are very different
However you can use an iPhone ALmOST as a netbook by using some smart software such as WinAdmin and ThinServer. This will allow the iPhone to run almost all the XP software
The following links will show you how-to :-
http://www.app-to-date.com/2008/08/7015/
http://www.aikotech.com/thinserver.htm
but that’s almost like an X Window terminal that’s hooked up to a supercomputer and calling the terminal, a supercomputer. The iphone isn’t really running the OS of your choice and therefore it is not a netbook. It’s a closed platform, like an Xbox.
My first thought was “Of course they’re not” closely followed by”but who really gives a shit?”.
Too right. This is semantics, not news.
The wrong question is being asked – in a nutshell, “does the iPhone / iPod touch fit a broad, excessively-equivocal definition of what a ‘netbook’ is?”
While the iPhone / touch may meet the definition, I really doubt that people have that definition in mind when they use the word “netbook.” I think most of us use “netbook” to mean “like a laptop, but smaller/lighter.”
The reasoning in the ArsTechnica article is pretty silly. I could just as easily find a source that defines human beings as “bipedal primates,” and then argue that chimpanzees are also human, based on that definition.
Edited 2009-01-14 11:02 UTC
I can’t stand her useless rants. I really wish she had stayed put at her old job and brought down the quality of journalism at TUAW as opposed to the more respected Ars.
apple does not allow its developers to make applications that can multitask on the iphone
http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=13866
I agree that an iPhone isn’t a Netbook.
But I’d say that for a large majority of users, the distinction simply isn’t important.
Basically, if you already have an iPhone, it is likely you won’t be lugging a netbook around with you. If you are, then it’s probably for a specific need.
The iPhone form factor/functionality ratio ranks it higher than the Netbook form factor/functionality ratio for a large majority of users.
Most people are content consumers rather than creators, and the iPhone consumes content with the best of them. It’s obvious limitation being screen size.
But, in fact, we’ve seen many comments about the iPhone being too big already, and many want something smaller. Yet, carrying a small phone + a netbook seems to remove any form factor concerns.
Because any smaller, and the iPhone really starts to lose its attractiveness as a content consuming device.
Hard to see a dedicated blogger using something like an iPhone for covering an event, like say Mac World. They’d use a netbook or a full laptop.
However much like many folks are content with carrying the smaller, modern “point and shoot” digital cameras, vs the larger “prosumer” cameras or the full boat SLRs, the iPhone fulfill many of the tasks of a netbook for more consumers.
I don’t care what you call it… But I use my iPod Touch for most of the things that a user would use a Netbook for…
Browsing the web
Email
Keeping my finances
Music
Movies (for both the iPod and watching on real TV’s)
Games
Network Admin (VNC, ssh, ping)
Maintain contacts
Calendar
KRR
But you’d secretly really prefer a slightly bigger screen wouldn’t you?
While I agree that this topic ranks pretty low in the “who cares” stakes, I still have to comment here.
The problem is that the term ‘netbook’ is subjective. Even the objections that Thom raised are subjective:
1. Small screen. At what size does it become a netbook? 2″?, 3″?, 7″?
2. No Flash, keyboard et al. Is it a netbook if it contains at least one of these? All of these? Who decides?
3. It’s not a laptop. What makes a “laptop”? Clam shell form factor? Is the EeePC a laptop, or the Nokia communicator?
Also, it is claimed that the first definition states that it must be a laptop to be considered a netbook. This is possibly false. The definition states:
“Netbooks may look like laptops, but they don’t have the full capabilities of a computer.”
You can read this quote to mean:
1. Netbooks look like laptops, but they don’t have the full capabilities of a computer.
OR
2. Netbooks sometimes look like laptops, but they don’t have the full capabilities of a computer.
Anyway, I’ll shut up now, as I’m sick of typing network every time I meant to write netbook.
If it’s smaller than a standard paperback book, then it’s not a netBook.
If you can’t read the text of a web page from the same distance you’d read a paperback book, then it’s not a netBook in ‘my book’.
Pun intended….