Mike Dell :"Confirmed: Apple is Outta Buisness" - Page 3

[quote]A better analogy is that the PC is a Jeep and the Mac is a Porsche. The Jeep can go on all of those windy dirt roads to nowhere (crappy PC apps that nobody really uses) while both can cruise the paved roads (most mainstream apps). Like all analogies it breaks down in a few places, but saying without caveat that the Mac can only run 5% of all software includes the implicit assumption that all software is equally worthy of being used.<hr></blockquote>
Its not just software. A paltry 5% market share also means that drivers for hardware don't get delivered, or come very late, as those of you who are trying to shift over to OSX should be very aware of.

There is also the issue of the internet. Music delivery systems and streaming video don't appear to a 5% market as returns don't justify the investment [Real for OSX, Pressplay?--just the tip of the iceberg for content delivery folks]. And as MS controls the browser market and the dominant browser is IE5.5/IE6 which has MS specific tags and javascript implementation that IE5 can't match [jscript access to plugins--a big deal for SVG and Shockwave/Flash].

It ain't just software.

[quote]Originally posted by Majuki:
<strong>

The car analogy is Apple's marketing bs. It would be equivalent if a Porsche were a car that could only drive on about 5% of the same roads as regular cars.</strong><hr></blockquote>

umm, yeah, ok...

how about you pull your ford festiva over and read this...

<a href="http://www.apple.com/myths/" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/myths/</a>

in particular, myth #2.
say what you want about RDF, and propaganda, but the cold truth is that 99% of all 'incompatibility' problems come from Windows being incapable, not MacOS.

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
It ain't just software.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Like I said, it breaks down in a few areas, but come on, the internet? Are you serious? I have never in my life tried to access a page or content that I could not simply because I use a Mac. Never. I'm sure there are examples, but they are obviously rare enough that I have never encountered them. Realplayer currently works fine in classic, and the OS X version is coming.

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>

[quote]Like I said, it breaks down in a few areas, but come on, the internet? Are you serious? I have never in my life tried to access a page or content that I could not simply because I use a Mac.<hr></blockquote>
The internet != browsing websites.
On-line banking, stock/portfolio management, financial services, etc. There's much more in store as broadband becomes more widespread. Apple [and many of their users] seem to equate the internet with web browsing and e-mail.

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
The internet != browsing websites.
On-line banking, stock/portfolio management, financial services, etc. There's much more in store as broadband becomes more widespread. Apple [and many of their users] seem to equate the internet with web browsing and e-mail.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, whatever. Internet banking and stock/portfolio management work fine for me in OS X. Just a because a few companies went out of there way to make Macs not compatible, does not mean you can't take your business elsewhere.

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
The internet != browsing websites.
On-line banking, stock/portfolio management, financial services, etc. There's much more in store as broadband becomes more widespread. Apple [and many of their users] seem to equate the internet with web browsing and e-mail.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I bank online, manage my portfolio and trade online, pay all of my bills, etc. online. I suppose I just got lucky, but my banks and broker are all completely platform neutral.

One thing MD hasn't figured out yet is that as long as the current customers keep buying Macs that % of customers that use Macs still won't buy a Dell. The danger is if Apple doesn't do anything about their slow hardware that will eventually change.

[quote]Just a because a few companies went out of there way to make Macs not compatible, does not mean you can't take your business elsewhere.<hr></blockquote>
When your browser market share is so low companies don't have to go out of there way to make macs incompatible, they just don't bother checking. That's the issue, and it carries into drivers and some pieces of software [Adobe latest Win only features]--companies just can't be bothered.

I think you guys (and gal) are missing the point that Michael Dell was clumsily NOT trying to make, but did, which is

1: Apple is making "KILLER HARDWARE". (iMac)

2: By implying that they can not afford it for long, at their current market share, he is saying that it is COMPETITIVELY PRICED. (iMac)


Basically he is unwittingly telling us to buy Macs. To bad most of his customers are as dumb and transparent as he is. They won't get it.

[quote]Originally posted by Ventral:
<strong>I think you guys (and gal) are missing the point that Michael Dell was clumsily NOT trying to make, but did, which is[...]</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. He wasn't clumsy, and that's the exact point he was trying to make, and why I don't understand the vitriolic reaction of some people in this thread.

It was supposed to be complementary, and honest - he was pointing out that producing fantastic products like the new iBook and LCD iMac is a very expensive business, and that Apple is going to have to increase its revenues if it intends to keep up with its own high standards.

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>It was supposed to be complementary, and honest - he was pointing out that producing fantastic products like the new iBook and LCD iMac is a very expensive business, and that Apple is going to have to increase its revenues if it intends to keep up with its own high standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Do you really believe he would pay Apple a compliment?
While it may seem to be a compliment, I tend to believe it was more of a subtle jab to say, even though Apple makes cool hardware, they may not be around in a few years, so don't risk spending your money buying a Mac.

But these jabs only reaffirm my belief that as Ventral stated, he's scared sh*tless of Apple
s new iMac.

[quote]Originally posted by satchmo:
<strong>Do you really believe he would pay Apple a compliment?
While it may seem to be a compliment, I tend to believe it was more of a subtle jab to say, even though Apple makes cool hardware, they may not be around in a few years, so don't risk spending your money buying a Mac.

But these jabs only reaffirm my belief that as Ventral stated, he's scared sh*tless of Apple
s new iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Michael Dell doesn't need to make jabs at Apple, his company is doing just fine - making a profit and showing some growth (Although slowed presumably by the economic situation last year).

The new iMac isn't going to make any major inroads into education market share - it's too expensive. It may grab a few "consumers with money", but not enough to worry Dell.

Do you really believe the new iMac will seriously threaten sales of Dell computers to educational facilities and consumers? Really, truly, honestly?

If Dell ever seems pissy it's because he wants the kind of legendary status Jobs has.

Be realistic - the new iMac proves Dell's point. Apple cannot increase its margins, they're already at 30% - the highest in the industry. Apple's bottom line is going to be higher because of the expense of components in the new design, particularly the LCD and custom parts like the neck. It has also priced the new line very competitively. To avoid taking a serious hit in profit on the iMac line in the coming year, it must increase sales. Apple has to increase its customer base.

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Michael Dell doesn't need to make jabs at Apple, his company is doing just fine - making a profit and showing some growth (Although slowed presumably by the economic situation last year).</strong><hr></blockquote>

And yet he does it over and over again, but that could have something to do with the ego thing you mentioned.

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>Apple has to increase its customer base.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And Apple is increasing its customer base, but Apple's customer base doesn't increase with the same speed as the rest of the industry, which is why the market share doesn't get higher.

[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>And Apple is increasing its customer base, but Apple's customer base doesn't increase with the same speed as the rest of the industry, which is why the market share doesn't get higher.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is the problem. Is my take on the financial issues surrounding the new iMac wrong? Apple needs to sell more iMacs to people who have never bought a Mac before. More than the original iMac, because the income generated by each of the new models is going to be less than the original design. I suspect education sales will be a lot less than the original iMac until the price lowers a little.

It'll be interesting to see Apple's second quarter financial report, see how much revenue and how much profit the new iMac is bringing in. I bet the margin on it is down from 30% too.

I bet the new iMac isn't making 30% margin, but I don't think it has to.

The problem I see with Dell's assessment is that if Apple uses 8% for R&D and it averages around 30% margin, it will be no better or worse off than it is now. It will not go bankrupt, it will be able to innovate fine for the 5% (and growing numbers) of Apple customers and the Apple employees will be making the same kind of money they are now and interestingly enough, be able to weather some of the cyclical storms that mere box makers cannot.

So my point is that Apple's current business model is SUSTAINABLE. I would not have thought so 2 years ago when we all predicted that the then new iMac would get Apple up to 10% market and start to attract more software titles. Back then if we would have known Apple would still be at 5% or less, we would have thought it was the end of Apple. My own observations are that it isn't the end of Apple as much as Dell would like to claim it so.

Against all odds, Apple is making the 5% work sustainably.

Now to extend beyond the 5% requires perhaps more R&D than is even currently being used by Apple, lets say 10%. This might mean a lower margin 25% and less cash in the bank in a year or two, maybe 2billion and then Apple might make it to 8% market. (The biggest share going to international if Apple could afford the marketing and extra R&D for that. I was in India last year and no one had Macs, but even people who had never seen a Mac, knew about them and thought they were great for graphics.)

So if 5% wasn't fatal 2 or 3 years ago (with 8% in R&D), what about today makes it fatal? My answer is that I don't think it is a problem.

On the upside, we haven't even seen the tip of the unix iceberg and THAT whole percentage of R&D and marketing....

Firstly, do you dispute that Apple's below the line costs are increased due to the cost of components for the new iMac? If this is the case, the model is not sustainable, even maintaining margins at 30%. Apple is making a minimal profit so far in 2002, and made a loss in 2001. It needs to make more money, and the only way to do that is ship more units.

It's much too early to predict how well the new iMac will sell, but the initial preorder numbers are around half that of the original iMac, and the income from each machine will likely be less than the original.

I have to say that I don't know what "below the line costs" refers to, but I would wager that a fair amount of the work put into development of components for the Cube were transferable to the lcd iMac - miniaturization, innovative mobo design development tools, etc.

(I wish they would have called it the iMac2 or something easy to type.)

I doubt the costs of developing the plastics, for instance, of the new iMac are more than for the old iMac. The old iMac used lots of plastic in very new ways, that required a tremendous investment in technique and equipmsnt. This new iMac isn't nearly as revolutionary as the old one ...and they saved alot on pigment costs...

As for orders being half that of the original iMac, I don't know, but obviously the market is quite abit different now ... and the tide lowers all boats now ...even Dell's.

Dell would be a more relevant company comparison if Apple liscenced clones...but it doesn't.

It would be interesting to see if Apple is taking a loss on the new iMac in the way that MS is taking a loss on each X-Box. Just as will MS, alot of Apple's profits come after the box is purchased. If Apple is taking a loss now, I would bet that it is not much more of a loss than the original iMac.

I think Apple should be concerned more with the market that Dell is leading in ... the business market. There, profits are low and volume needs to be high, the levels that Dell is used to. It isn't Apple's forte, but it needs to be at some point to get anywhere near 30% market share...if that is even being planned. However I don't think Mike Dell has alot of feel for anything that is NOT low profit, high volume, so his comments are not as relevant as one might think.

Again, my point is not that Apple should or shouldn't increase it's market share. It should. But does it NEED to? That is the question that we don't know yet. I thought years ago it needed to to even just maintain it's innovation, but it has proved me wrong. It doesn't NEED to increase market share to innovate, it just needs to turn a profit. And it does.

[quote]Originally posted by MacGregor:
<strong>I have to say that I don't know what "below the line costs" refers to, but I would wager that a fair amount of the work put into development of components for the Cube were transferable to the lcd iMac - miniaturization, innovative mobo design development tools, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It just means that the cost of creating each completed iMac. The factors you mention in development of the Cube don't count - that's included in R&D. The below the line costs are the actual costs to Apple of the components required to build each iMac.

The problematic components in the new iMac are the LCD display and the SuperDrive (and possibly the neck), which even though Apple will buy in bulk, are very expensive compared to the alternatives (i.e. Apple's decision to make "killer new hardware" means it needs more expensive components than are required to make a complete unit). The 800MHz G4 is also a lot more expensive than, say, a fast G3 or 500MHz G4, but Apple chose the "killer" option. The neck is essential to the design of the new iMac, but an alternative design would have made the display support cheaper to manufacture.

AirSluf, the R&D costs are covered by the gross margin. If the margin is "thinner" than the typical 30% of most of Apple's product lines, then there is less profit on each iMac even if R&D costs remain constant.

There isn't a question of the R&D costs not being covered, just that making a profit becomes very tight with a reduced margin and increased below the line costs (see above).

My comparison of initial sales figures of the original iMac and the LCD iMac was based on pre-orders in the first week after each product announcement. I admit it's not a solid basis for making judgements, but it's the only indication we have at this stage.

[quote]I doubt the costs of developing the plastics, for instance, of the new iMac are more than for the old iMac. The old iMac used lots of plastic in very new ways, that required a tremendous investment in technique and equipmsnt. This new iMac isn't nearly as revolutionary as the old one ...and they saved alot on pigment costs...<hr></blockquote>
And the new iMac use a lot of metal in extraordinary ways. The armature for the LCD is stainless steel--not cheap, and not easy to work with as a material. The hemispherical shell that supports the arm is actually a metal shell (looks cast) covered by Apple's trademark white polycarb. Actually very impressive. Reminds me of a IIci in build quality.

Thanks for the explanation, Belle.

The latest BusinessWeek on-line has a pretty good description (without details) about the new iMac and the editors didn't seem to worried about the iMac itself. They are of course guarded about Apple, but the iMac as a product line seems fine.

I think the casing and lcd came in at about $600 as under the line costs.

Man, where is everyone seeing these iMacs? I haven't found one place in the state of Oregon with them!

It just seems to me that time and time again, people have predicted Apple's death.
Not only has this not happened but Apple's future seem pretty bright despite a low market share.
These days, it's profits that matter. A bigger marketshare would be great, but what good is it if you don't make any money.
However, something tells me, Apple's on a roll. The TIME magazine cover along with Apple's retail stores and generally good press about OSX, will do wonders. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple's marketshare doubled by this time next year.

Belle, I don't think you realize how huge the new iMac is going to be. Every person I've shown it to thinks it kicks ass and they want one, and they all say how incredible the price/performance is. I've read many stories of people going into Apple stores and being blown away by this thing! Once Apple gets all the models into the channel, they are going to sell like hotcakes. Sure, the margin may not be as good, but increased unit sales will make that point moot. Apple is not going to be able to make enough of these.

Dell is just dumbfounded. He has been saying this crap for years, and Apple continues to churn out one kickass product after another and still remain profitable AND increase their marketshare, slowly, but surely. 5 years from now, I bet Dell will be saying the same thing... "Almost now, they can't hold on much longer... they're still gonna die.." and Apple will probably have around 6-7 % marketshare.

Macs are just more fun to use.. and they also feel more "girly" to me.. no offense guys

actually belle, for once i totally disagree with you.

i think Dell is slowly killing itself, and i'm not sure what they're going to do about it. Dell is hoping to drive out all competition by undercutting their prices. people get used to low prices, or they just end up creating a cadre of tiny, no budget garage PC builders. with the internet the way it is anyone can buy components dirt cheap and build a machine for less than what Dell sells them for.

Dell's problem is that i can put together a machine at 66% of the cost of the machine from Dell any day of the week, and still make money if i sell it. and Dell is working on almost no margin.

they can't last forever doing this. unlike WalMart, you don't need to go to Dell to get those good prices, and there's no store near you where you can just walk in and pick up a machine from Dell. if i've got to wait a week anyway, might as well save the money and build a machine myself.

the other huge factor that i think you may not be counting on is that people really want to be able to make home movies on DVD's. (not just for that reason all you sick minded people)

but being able to put family movies on a medium that won't degrade, and that has tons of storage space is wonderful. i know people who would have never considered a mac before taking a look at that iMac and thinking for the first time a Mac may be worth it.

all Apple has to do is provide people with a cheaper way to get a task done that people want to do, and you'll see Apple's machines selling. that's always been what has brought them up in marketshare. Apple is now trying to move into DVD authoring, and i think that's great. it's an area where they have a shot.

he he, i went back home and visited my parents and my dad, who's always hated macs for as long as i can remember was asking me about the new iMacs. when i asked him why, he said that he and my mom wanted to be able to have family movies for when we have grandkids, and would like to be able to do the DVD's themselves, and from what he's read, a mac is the only way to go.

unlike people who already have a PC and need a reason to buy something else next time around, there is a huge market of people who are looking for machines to do something completly different than what they're used to, in which case the departure from a PC to a Mac isn't that big of a leap after all.

and hell, it's got to be more secure than XP.

while apple works on the hardware side, MS is busy scaring people off with their psycho software licenses and security holes. one two combo baby!

-alcimedes

[quote]Originally posted by MacGregor:
<strong>Thanks for the explanation, Belle.

The latest BusinessWeek on-line has a pretty good description (without details) about the new iMac and the editors didn't seem to worried about the iMac itself. They are of course guarded about Apple, but the iMac as a product line seems fine.

I think the casing and lcd came in at about $600 as under the line costs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you for the heads up about BusinessWeek. You know, $600 before you factor in other costs - hard disk, optical disk, 700/800MHz G4, motherboard, RAM, etc. is actually quite a lot. I'd bet a lot more than the old iMac case and CRT display.
[quote]Originally posted by Tarbash:
<strong>Belle, I don't think you realize how huge the new iMac is going to be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure. I won't argue the point, though, it's really too hard to make predictions. Someone save this thread, we can argue next January.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>actually belle, for once i totally disagree with you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yikes, this is the first time you've totally disagreed with me? I should warn you that instantly lessens the value of any post you make.

Dell will do fine so long as the computer industry holds up. I too could build computer with the same specification as a Dell for a fraction of the price. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people I know outside the industry couldn't. Most "consumers" are happy to pay the extra to get the machine made, and some sort of come back if it goes wrong (no matter how miserable Dell's service and support may be).

Despite not having stores where you can walk in and pick up a Dell, it's still #1. A lot of consumers do get that - Amazon has brought online ordering to the masses. And those annoying TV commercials will have brought in a lot of new customers who are pissed at the experience of buying a PC in an electronics store.

As for the small profit margin on Dell's computers, that's fine. It's just a different model from Apple - buy all your components in bulk, get them dirt cheap, pay people peanuts to assemble them, sell them dirt cheap but by the truckload, and you're making good money.

Now I know there are arguments about quality involved here, but regarding DVD creation - I can get a Dell (equivalent spec to iMac but with 17in CRT) with a DVD+RW drive plus a free printer, and 1 year service and phone support for less than the $1799 iMac. It also comes with a $100 rebate - more than enough to buy Sonic's MyDVD Plus.

[quote]Originally posted by concentricity:
<strong>

umm, yeah, ok...

how about you pull your ford festiva over and read this...

<a href="http://www.apple.com/myths/" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/myths/</a>

in particular, myth #2.
say what you want about RDF, and propaganda, but the cold truth is that 99% of all 'incompatibility' problems come from Windows being incapable, not MacOS.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And I'd assume you're the type to believe Jon Rubenstein talk about MHz Myth. So, it's true to a point. But don't tell me that the DP 800 G4 will quash a top of the line Athlon MP system. It falls drastically short. I'm aware of the '10 Myths' on Apple's page, but the car analogy as they have it is bad. I'm not saying that all of the rest of the PC only programs are all worth using or that there aren't equivalents for Mac OS. I know that most of the mainstream apps and games are ported to the Mac OS platform. With those in mind, look at all of the great software titles that are available for Windows only. Look at all of the sweet hardware that currently lack drivers for Mac OS. If things are ported, it's usually not a simultaneous release. The Jeep vs regular car analogy is a bit better.

Fred Anderson covered a lot of this ground in the conference call:

The profit margin on the new iMac for this quarter will be abnormally thin because of component costs and the sort of inefficiencies that crop up when you start assembling a product.

The profit margin on the new iMac is not expected to be as good as it was on the old iMac in the forseeable future. Apple will strive to improve it, of course, but Fred basically told the analysts to say goodbye to 30%.

Apple is intentionally trading profit margin in an attempt to gain market share. That's straight from the CFO. So it's not surprising that Apple will have to gain market share, is it? They're basing their financial model on it, after all.

I don't believe that Apple is going to try to grow market share purely in the consumer market. I see a multi-pronged strategy. But there's no question that they're pushing aggressively now, and they're making the necessary adjustments (volume vs. profit per unit) in order to do so.

I have to agree with Belle that most of the furor expressed in this thread over Dell's statement seems to come from the fact that Dell said it. All he did, essentially, was quote Fred Anderson back to the reporter. After all, imitation is what he's good at.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>Firstly, do you dispute that Apple's below the line costs are increased due to the cost of components for the new iMac? If this is the case, the model is not sustainable, even maintaining margins at 30%. Apple is making a minimal profit so far in 2002, and made a loss in 2001. It needs to make more money, and the only way to do that is ship more units.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I probably should keep my nose out of this, but:

You're right, obviously. If the profit from each new iMac is less than the profit from each old iMac, they need to sell more of the new ones to maintain the same iMac profit level. However, since you're talking year-over-year (you mentioned last year's loss), how well did the old iMacs sell last year? You can't talk about just last year for profits and then talk about the entire lifetime of the iMac for units sold. Stick to the same time frame.

Personally, I think the new iMac will sell more units this year than the old one sold last year. Could be wrong. Like I said, it all depends on how well the iMac did last year.

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Dell
Net Revenue - $31888 million
R&D costs - $482 million
</strong><hr></blockquote>

According to unnamed marketing sources from within Dell, approximately $320 million of their R&D costs went toward determining that 67% of people in the 18-34 age group are "much more likely" to feel good about buying a Dell computer when prompted to do so by a young man named Steve wearing tight trousers.

hmmm....
Belle
Dell
Belle
Dell

Sorta interestin' don't cha think?



tsukurite

[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>[Lots of stuff I deleted]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dagnabbit, I hate it when someone comes along and makes the point I've been trying to make (before getting distracted) much more succinctly than I could ever manage.

You make a very good point about Apple's plans hinging on all products, not just the iMac. I used that example because it's the product that elicited the comment from Dell.

But can Apple afford to take a risk on reduced profit across the range, with no guarantees of increasing its customer base? Especially because it would appear it doesn't currently have the necessary components to "bump" the Power Mac range in such an impressive way as it has just bumped the iMac, an act that the vast majority of posters here seem to think is vital.
[quote]Originally posted by spotbug:
<strong>I probably should keep my nose out of this, but:

You're right, obviously. If the profit from each new iMac is less than the profit from each old iMac, they need to sell more of the new ones to maintain the same iMac profit level. However, since you're talking year-over-year (you mentioned last year's loss), how well did the old iMacs sell last year? You can't talk about just last year for profits and then talk about the entire lifetime of the iMac for units sold. Stick to the same time frame.

Personally, I think the new iMac will sell more units this year than the old one sold last year. Could be wrong. Like I said, it all depends on how well the iMac did last year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No! Stick your nose in. It's kind of fun.

I did talk about last years loss, but my comparison of iMac sales was with the initial release in 1998, which brought a good increase in revenues and decent profit. If the new iMac (which I think we're all finally agreed will make a great deal less profit per unit) doesn't sell as well as the original Bondi iMac, that good increase and decent profit could well be a loss.

I do get your point that iMac sales in 2001 were pretty miserable, due to the products age and specifications as much as any economic issues, and therefore sales could not be any worse than last year. But as far as profits are concerned, you have to examine the recent launch with a comparable new product introduction, and with a time in Apple's history where it was actually making some money.
[quote]Originally posted by Super Flippy:
<strong>According to unnamed marketing sources from within Dell, approximately $320 million of their R&D costs went toward determining that 67% of people in the 18-34 age group are "much more likely" to feel good about buying a Dell computer when prompted to do so by a young man named Steve wearing tight trousers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently there was also an unexplained $40,000 spend in Dell's financial report. Investigators found Gap receipts for jeans and black polo-necks totalling $40,000 in Michael Dell's trash. Coincidence?
[quote]Originally posted by tsukurite:
<strong>hmmm....
Belle
Dell
Belle
Dell

Sorta interestin' don't cha think?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You got me, I work for Dell.*

* Untrue. I do however work for a one time "enemy" of Apple.

Belle wrote:

[quote]<strong>You make a very good point about Apple's plans hinging on all products, not just the iMac. I used that example because it's the product that elicited the comment from Dell.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, that's not what I meant, although I do agree with it. I posted a more detailed <a href="http://www.xsorbit1.com/users/flamingo/index.cgi?board=General_Discussion&action=display& num=1011404468" target="_blank">analysis</a> over at Bad Flamingo. In a nutshell: I see signs pointing to a push into enterprise, part of which involves reconceptualizing some traditional markets as enterprise.

[quote]<strong>But can Apple afford to take a risk on reduced profit across the range, with no guarantees of increasing its customer base?</strong><hr></blockquote>

If the result was guaranteed it wouldn't be a risk, would it? But then, since risk-taking is a longtime Apple strategy I don't see anything unusual or exceptional going on.

[quote]<strong>I do however work for a one time "enemy" of Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>

IBM?

[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>Actually, that's not what I meant, although I do agree with it. I posted a more detailed analysis over at Bad Flamingo. In a nutshell: I see signs pointing to a push into enterprise, part of which involves reconceptualizing some traditional markets as enterprise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem I see with this is something mentioned in your Bad Flamingo thread that wasn't really covered in any depth.

The general perception is that the "enterprise" market is full of companies running Microsoft Office on Windows PCs sitting on networks served by huge banks of Windows servers (, I know there's Sun, Linux, etc. but it comes down to the same thing).

However the truth is that most big enterprises (Insurance companies, banks, call centers, support services, etc.) run bespoke software applications. Admittedly these are generally written on top of generic databases like Oracle, but these companies have typically invested huge amounts of money in software development and maintenance, licenses, hardware, and support. If a company made the decision to switch to Mac, chances are the software developer (which also maintains the applications and offers support) doesn't develop for Mac. They're typically Windows-only outfits (and still quite often DOS!). So the code would have to be handed over to a Mac development outfit (if you can find one) and either ported or completely rewritten. Neither option is cheap.

The alternative is for Apple to just offer back office hardware - servers which are often Sun or Linux systems with a Windows network running off them. Trouble is, Microsoft have made it too easy to choose servers running Microsoft server products unless you operate an intranet or use Sun workstations (Whatever happened to thin clients?).

And if you require Intel/AMD based hardware to run Windows out in the office, Dell will make you an offer you can't refuse if you also buy its server products for the back office.
[quote]<strong>If the result was guaranteed it wouldn't be a risk, would it? But then, since risk-taking is a longtime Apple strategy I don't see anything unusual or exceptional going on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There certainly aren't any guarantees, and without a solid foothold in one market, it's incredibly dangerous (almost foolish) to attempt to corner another.
[quote]<strong>IBM?</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a bonus point.

And we've got some serious processing power here that'll make the Athlon look like an abacus with missing beads.*

* Should be shipping sometime around 2015-2020.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>

CONFIRMED!!! Mike Dell is a douche-bag.

hey belle, just off chance, which dell config did you come up with that was less than the new iMac in price w/a DVD burner?

i tried a few but didn't find any.