Those that can...won't

Will Apple introduce a netbook? An analyst says Apple can make money doing it. Will Microsoft replace IE with a much more secure web browser? Some Microsoft-connected researchers say they've already got the technology to do it.

But will they? Nope. These are just two more reminders that, in these dreary recession days, you really can't believe everything you read -- even if it's true.

Look, let's suppose analyst Brian Marshall of Broadpoint AmTech did a good job on his cost-of-goods analysis when he says Apple could offer a netbook for $599. Let's even suppose he';s sufficiently clairvoyant about the current retail market that he's right when he says such a thing (a) would sell and (b) wouldn't cannibalize Apple's current products.

But he's thinking like the Wall Street analyst he is, not like the tech company that Apple is.

Apple doesn't play catch-up, and Apple doesn't play in low-margin markets. That's embedded in Steve Jobs's DNA. Apple used to do catch-up and low margins, back in the days after Jobs was kicked out in the 1980s. Those days weren't pretty.

And since Jobs has returned and demonstrated that Apple can afford to leave that kind of spare change on the table while concentrating on much bigger market-creating innovations, Apple isn't likely to return to the strategy that put it on poverty row for a decade.

Nope -- no Apple netbook.

What about those Microsoft researchers with their secure browser? Actually, it's a group that includes Microsofties plus researchers from the University of Illinois and the University of Washington. And early on in their academic paper, they say clearly that their stance is one where security always comes before compatibility or performance.

OK, let's give these researchers the same benefit of the doubt as we gave that Wall Street analyst. Let's assume they're right when they describe their browser's performance as "acceptable" and the compatibility issues as no big deal (out of 100 popular sites tested with their prototype browser, only 8 showed problems -- or maybe 34 or more, the researchers cite different numbers).

Now think: In which Bizarro World does Microsoft puts itself at a market disadvantage because it has merely "acceptable" performance and compatibility? And understand, with the technology the researchers describe -- and it does look good, at least on paper -- a secure browser will always have slower performance and poorer compatibility than one that doesn't use this secure-browsing technology.

Compatibility and performance are baked into Microsoft's marketing DNA, even more deeply than Apple's aversion to catch-up and small margins.

Nope. It sounds good, and I'll even accept Microsoft's claim that it really, really cares about security.

But enough to offer a slower browser that makes web pages render funny? Don't you believe it.