Osugi Sakae

Dell is going to discontinue 12-inch netbooks. After reading about it here and there on the net, I think two different stories are getting mixed up here. First is the overly fluid definition of “netbook” and which ones consumers want. The second story is the impact of titans like Intel and Microsoft on the market and on consumer choice.

(A third story that is lurking in the background is the “sell it on CD” method of software sales that thrives in the MS Windows and Apple Mac ecosystems but is unsuited to netbooks, which do not have CD drives. Linux users, in contrast, are used to getting most of their software online and netbooks are just as capable as desktops in this ecosystem. But more on that in a future post.)

First, what is a netbook, and who wants them?

Michael Arrington believes that Dell’s real reason for dropping 12-inch models is profit and that “[n]etbooks should be getting bigger, not smaller. That’s what users want.”

David Coursey at PC World also thinks Dell is making a mistake. He goes into a bit more detail on the costs / profit factors for everyone involved but also talks about the need for bigger, more powerful netbooks.

Although he does say “call them what you will”, Coursey believes consumers want “suitably capable $300 portables” but that “at some point, an Intel Atom processor just doesn’t have the oomph for the job”. He is advocating for bigger netbooks or cheaper, smaller notebooks.

What neither writer did is define netbook. I do not disagree with their arguments as much as I just want some more clarity from them. I agree that some people might want $300 computers with a 12- or 13-inch screen and more processing power than an Atom chip provides. I do not think it would be useful to call these netbooks though.

Let’s define netbook. In my mind, three factors make a netbook:

1. Size and weight: small and light, easily fits into a regular backpack, briefcase, or even a purse.
2. Battery: long life under real conditions. At least 5 hours of real use, more on newer models. Anything less and it isn’t a netbook.
3. Net-centric: Focus on doing things over the network. A CD drive is not necessary; music, data, software, etc are loaded either over the network or from USB memory. In my mind as soon as you add a CD drive, you don’t have a netbook anymore.

Personally I love my Asus EeePC 1000 (after putting PCLinuxOS on it) but I do not and would not want to use it as my main computer. My wife uses her EeePC 1000 as her main computer but she only uses it about 30 minutes a day on average – for email and reading news. I wouldn’t mind trying out a netbook with a slightly larger screen, as long as it still met the criteria listed above. But if the bigger screen means significantly less battery life, I might have to pass on it.

Obviously people need to buy a computer that meets their needs and many people are going to need more power or a CD drive over small size and battery life. Netbooks aren’t for these people. Which is why I agree with Arrington and Coursey that OEMs should be delivering as many models as they can find markets for. Just don’t call them netbooks if they don’t meet the criteria above.

I believe that Dell’s reason for killing off their 12-inch “netbooks” is, as both Arrington and Coursey point out, profit margins and the interests of one or two powerful suppliers. At the same time however, if the computer has the power to run MS Vista or MS 7, you can bet that MS will not be allowing OEMs to put MS WinXP on it. The lack of power was the only reason MS Windows-based netbooks have MS WinXP so it is hard to argue that a computer that can run MS Vista should be called a netbook.

Anyhow, more on all of that next time.