Intel shares its internal netbook and MID definitions

The definitions for netbooks and MIDs, and the distinctions between the two (and regular laptops, for that matter), have always been more than a little nebulous, but it looks like Intel is doing its part to clarify things a bit (for itself, at least), and it's now sharing its internal definitions for the categories with the general public. According to jkOnTheRun, Intel sees netbooks as "clamshell notebooks" with 7-inch to 10.2-inch screens that are "purpose built for Internet use." MIDs, on the other hand, are "pocketable devices" with 4-inch to 7-inch screens, which can also be clamshell devices, or come in slider or tablet form, each of which must also be built specifically for "internet-based targeted usages." In related, confusion-inducing news, Intel also says that it expects to see an increasing number of specialized MIDs that focus on more narrow uses like navigation, entertainment or, yes, even gaming.

[Montey @ Dec 4th 2008 9:41PM]

And here I thought that Intel didn't care about the netbook market...

[1234321 @ Dec 4th 2008 10:45PM]

sure they didn't, despite practically own the entire category with their Atom

[nerdtalker @ Dec 4th 2008 9:42PM]

The problem with the definition here is that even 10.2 inches isn't really big enough to describe some of the heftier, Atom-based netbooks. If anything, one would've thought that the definition would include something about total price, and the presence of an Atom CPU.

The whole netbook phenomenon centers around low-cost availability and simple ease-of-use. A netbook really isn't a netbook if it costs more than $400. It just isn't. At that point, you can find a cheaper, probably faster (abeit crappy) traditional notebook with a bigger, more spacious keyboard to boot. The whole point was that it was cheap.

MIDs, on the other hand, are what intel/Microsoft *wanted* the netbook to be. Turns out touchscreen only or even thumb keyboards just aren't enough. (Trust me, I have a Q1 ultra-v I used all of last year. I gave up and got a Latitude XT because I couldn't bear not having a keyboard. This is why netbooks prevailed).

[angelwolf71885 @ Dec 4th 2008 10:27PM]

10.2 inch screen...

the dell mini 12 has a 10.2 inch screen..
so it qualifiys..

thay could screen not actuial form factior...

[Aguiluz @ Dec 4th 2008 9:43PM]

Why does every company have different definitions of a single word?

It's like me defining a potato as a "round, brown vegetable that grows underground" and another person defining potato as "a starchy, tuberous crop from the perennial Solanum tuberosum of the Solanaceae family." [Wikipedia]

A potato is a potato, A netbook is a netbook. Can they just agree on a single definition?

[nerdtalker @ Dec 4th 2008 9:44PM]

Ultimately, the market itself will decide what a netbook really *is*. That, or wikipedia.

[DirtyVegas @ Dec 4th 2008 9:59PM]

@ nerdtalker

[Citation Needed]

[Elora HRanma @ Dec 4th 2008 9:51PM]

So the Nintendo DS, with 6-6.5-inch of screen space, will eventually become a MID?

[Giroro @ Dec 4th 2008 9:58PM]

two 3" screens have less space than one 6" screen. one 6" screen has the space of roughly 4 3" screens

[craigsharp16 @ Dec 4th 2008 9:55PM]

so, by definition my iphone, my wifes DS and our PSP are all MID's?

[Joshua Walters @ Dec 4th 2008 10:37PM]

No, your iPhone is a Smart Phone. The iTouch has always been more targeted towards MID use than media use though.

PSP and DS, maybe, if you actually used the browser on it. However, since thats not the primary function, and few people regularly use the browser on those device, I wouldnt go as far to call them a MID.

[nerdtalker @ Dec 4th 2008 10:51PM]

I'll help you out there, i*PHONE*. (emphasis added to illustrate the fact it is a phone, not a MID).

/facepalm

[Gad Get @ Dec 5th 2008 12:51AM]

The iPhone is classified as a smartphone, since it is after all, a mobile phone. Even the iPod Touch would be better classified as a PMP than an MID. The iPod Touch is not a purpose-built internet device, rather, a portable media player with internet capability. Besides, the way I see it, not being able to display flash pretty much disqualifies it from being categorized as an MID, since so much of what one does on the internet almost invariably involves flash content.
As for the DS and the PSP, there's a name for those too: portable game systems. ;)

[Giroro @ Dec 4th 2008 9:55PM]

What about 10" tablets?

[Mike @ Dec 4th 2008 10:37PM]

I was thinking the same thing.

So basically Intel is saying that there will NEVER be a tablet netbook??

Give me a touch-screen netbook with 1gb ram or more and the whole linux/xp/vista home basic option (cause vista is actually pretty nice for tablets) and i'll get it. so. damn. fast.

[linuxamp @ Dec 4th 2008 11:41PM]

A 10" tablet is just "tablet"

[Peter @ Dec 4th 2008 10:03PM]

MID's would actually be quite good for playing older games like Half-Life, Jedi-Knight II, etc. To run them you could just use daemon tools. Even Half-Life 2 wouldn't be a problem considering the screen resolution won't be more than 720x480.

[bot @ Dec 4th 2008 11:26PM]

Here's my proposal for the definition of a netbook. A x86 or x64 based computer in the laptop form factor (clam shell type), with the primary purpose of the device being internet usage. (inter)net-(note)book

That's it. By adding more restrictions to the definition you're going to be making alot of exceptions to the rule. Price shouldn't determine the netbook category because as newer tech comes out they'll rise in price. Also, there are netbook enthusiasts who wouldn't mind a premium netbook with more features at a higher cost. Weight, processing power, battery life, and other features shouldn't determine the category though it's always wise for manufacturers to improve upon those.

[Omar @ Dec 5th 2008 1:03AM]

I guess there ARM netbooks that are due next year will technically not be netbooks. Why on earth would you insert the processor architecture into the definition. It's not a given that x86/x64 will be around 10 years into the future. If Windows ever dies, loses significant market share or gets ported to another architecture in a non-disastrous way, Intel will have to find something else to sell.

[bot @ Dec 5th 2008 4:39AM]

I guess I made a mistake. By using the architecture as a definition I was trying to imply that they must be able to run full fledged operating systems. If those ARM netbooks are able to run full versions of Linux or Windows then my definition was inadequate. However, I was trying to differentiate the netbook platfrom from all other devices that can do most of the functions that a netbook can do, but are limited in that they use their own proprietary OS and their software is controlled. For example smartphones, they can do just about everything that a netbook can do. You can surf the net, check your email, chat, etc, but their main difference besides the form factor is the system architecture. For me that is a redeeming value in netbooks is that you're getting a fully capable (though underpowered) system in a smaller package.

[Christian @ Dec 5th 2008 12:29PM]

So wait where does an exact 7" falls in this category if it's clamshell design and is internet use??