or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Above all, price will dictate success or failure
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Above all, price will dictate success or failure

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Regardless of what cool hardware is introduced, the success of it will hinge on it's perceived value.

For instance, $1800 is too high for an iMac. Even if it has some really innovative feature, wireless, or detachable screen, there are price points which take it out of the hands of the ordinary consumer.
Regulars of this forum may understand what things should cost but other won't.

Bottom line is: Is Jobs serious about getting the other 95% of the market? If he is, he must combine a competitive price along with the revolutionary features.
post #2 of 32
YOU, are correct
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #3 of 32
That I'll agree with.

20% across the board cuts!!!!

j/k

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #4 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by satchmo:
<strong>
Bottom line is: Is Jobs serious about getting the other 95% of the market? If he is, he must combine a competitive price along with the revolutionary features.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think he even dreams of getting near 100% of the market, should'nt think he wants to either. Think of Apple more in terms of high margin products like BMW/Bang & Olufsen/Nikon.
They don't want to compete with Dell/Ford/Sanyo/Kodak.

Michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #5 of 32
Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I might be) but Apple has clearly stated that they are after more market share through their "5 down, 95 to go" statement.

All they need to do is look at why the new iBooks have done sooooooo well in the market, and that's because they, for once, have brought in a product which is great value for money. If they do that sort of pricing across the board of products.....they will easily double their market share.

Just my opinion.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Joecool only answers the phone when he knows it's for him...
Reply
Joecool only answers the phone when he knows it's for him...
Reply
post #6 of 32
Satchmo, you are so right. I fear that Jobs doesn't share your understanding of how important price, or value, is to consumers.

In fact, at a time when other computer makers are lowering prices, Apple raised the price of the low end Powermac! That's ridiculous, especially since the component prices for Apple keep falling and falling. Their margins on the Powermacs must be incredible.
post #7 of 32
The primary thrust of the 5 down, 95 to go was that Apple was seeking to garner a doubled marketshare......10%.

I think it's pipedream, at least in pc-land. Now in portable/handheld-land, the book hasn't been written. The only way Apple will ever get to this mythical 10% marketshare is for:

a) 12 million windows users to die in a freak UFO attack.
b) leverage backwards their iDevices to make people want/need Macs to be at the center of them.
c) cut prices to the point of unsustainability (ie, PC prices).

I guess (b) is the safest choice.

But here's to hoping!

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #8 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>a) 12 million windows users to die in a freak UFO attack.</strong><hr></blockquote>

heheeh


To some people, this may seem like the most likely choice depending on how they view SJ...

-Paul
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #9 of 32
Satchmo, you are so right. I fear that Jobs doesn't share your understanding of how important price, or value, is to consumers.

In fact, at a time when other computer makers are lowering prices, Apple raised the price of the low end Powermac! That's ridiculous, especially since the component prices for Apple keep falling and falling. Their margins on the Powermacs must be incredible.


iBook anyone? Apple knows value and quality. You get what you pay for.
post #10 of 32
Excellent point. Thank you, satchmo.
post #11 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>Satchmo, you are so right. I fear that Jobs doesn't share your understanding of how important price, or value, is to consumers.

In fact, at a time when other computer makers are lowering prices, Apple raised the price of the low end Powermac! That's ridiculous, especially since the component prices for Apple keep falling and falling. Their margins on the Powermacs must be incredible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You want to see a recent example of this in actual practice?
Look at SGI. Great products, huge margins, down the tubes!!!
post #12 of 32
That's my point Macintosh.....look 6 posts up mate!!

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Joecool only answers the phone when he knows it's for him...
Reply
Joecool only answers the phone when he knows it's for him...
Reply
post #13 of 32
actually 4 posts

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Joecool only answers the phone when he knows it's for him...
Reply
Joecool only answers the phone when he knows it's for him...
Reply
post #14 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>

a) 12 million windows users to die in a freak UFO attack.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think it might be more like 25 million mate!!

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Joecool only answers the phone when he knows it's for him...
Reply
Joecool only answers the phone when he knows it's for him...
Reply
post #15 of 32
[quote] I think it's pipedream, at least in pc-land. Now in portable/handheld-land, the book hasn't been written. The only way Apple will ever get to this mythical 10% marketshare is for:

a) 12 million windows users to die in a freak UFO attack.
b) leverage backwards their iDevices to make people want/need Macs to be at the center of them.
c) cut prices to the point of unsustainability (ie, PC prices).
<hr></blockquote>

d) Elect a president who's justice department will bust up the Microsoft monopoly.
post #16 of 32
that would have been Nader, I suppose. Gore probably wouldn't have done it either. Worse, he'd go on teevee and explain why, in that pedantic, you-are-fives-old-and-he's-your-dad voice:

"Microsoft is big, and DRIVES the high tech market. This means that they MUST be allowed to continue to have the freedom to INNOVATE. Therefore, I have DIRECTED the Justice Department, under Attorney General Laurence Tribe, to cease AND desist all further anti-trust activities."

Darrell Hammond did a great Al Gore.....ah, well. He does a great Dick Cheney, too, so I guess that's ok.....

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #17 of 32
Nader would for sure. Gore probably would, too. Clinton's justice department was ready to nip Microsoft's balls off, and since Gore is more liberal than Clinton, I'm sure he would have pushed this matter.
post #18 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Macintosh:
<strong>Satchmo, you are so right. I fear that Jobs doesn't share your understanding of how important price, or value, is to consumers.

In fact, at a time when other computer makers are lowering prices, Apple raised the price of the low end Powermac! That's ridiculous, especially since the component prices for Apple keep falling and falling. Their margins on the Powermacs must be incredible.


iBook anyone? Apple knows value and quality. You get what you pay for.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but why can't Apple realize that with all the other products?
post #19 of 32
Perhaps Apple does realize it. The iBook was the last new computer revision from Apple...maybe their next one, the iMac, will follow in kind?

I hope so.
post #20 of 32
Thread Starter 
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Apple came out with a very competitive iMac and a not so competitive PowerMac.

Afterall, the iMac is their cash cow with greater volumes sold to the general masses.

Pro users will bitch and complain but will have no choice if they want to stay with the MacOS platform.
post #21 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>
The only way Apple will ever get to this mythical 10% marketshare is for:

a) 12 million windows users to die in a freak UFO attack.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

ROFL
post #22 of 32
The consumer machines are a commodity so they do have to be priced as such. I think that's why the iBook is such a value, and the low end iMac is/will be on Monday. Apple always charges a premium for added value (superdrive with iDVD, combo drives that slot load, etc.)

The PowerMac is a different story. PowerMacs are not a commodity, they're mostly a tool. People will pay what they have to for a tool that does the job they want to do. Apple's PowerMac prices don't have to fall in line with other companies as long as they continue to offer tools that they others can't touch. If the current iApps are any indication then I don't think Apple has a whole lot to worry about.

That said, I think they need clustering (rackmount?) servers for the pure speed fix. I think the PowerMac need to become the middle ground product even if it costs as much as a high end PC. On top of the speed heap would be clusters.

Could gigawire be a way for clustered machines to speak to each other wirelessly? I guess it wouldn't be very helpful in a rackmount situation since the mounted machines are already so close, but what if the range was 150 feet? 300 feet? A mile? Every computer on campus could be dynamically brought in and out of a cluster. How would Maya run under those conditions?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #23 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by ryukyu:
<strong>

You want to see a recent example of this in actual practice?
Look at SGI. Great products, huge margins, down the tubes!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Erm, SGI's x86 offerings (320, 540) were pure delusional for the asking price. Too expensive (not to mention proprietary memory when 'regular' memory dimms plumeted in price), on-board non-upgradeable graphics, out-dated spec-wise even before they were officially released... oh and they still had a floppy drive ( that last one was a bad joke. so sue me ). They should've never released an x86 machine.
post #24 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by the Belgian waffle:
<strong>

Erm, SGI's x86 offerings (320, 540) were pure delusional for the asking price. Too expensive (not to mention proprietary memory when 'regular' memory dimms plumeted in price), on-board non-upgradeable graphics, out-dated spec-wise even before they were officially released... oh and they still had a floppy drive ( that last one was a bad joke. so sue me ). They should've never released an x86 machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks, you helped me make part of my point.
Yes, they were too expensive, and they did some stupid things like the proprietary memory,but those machines have unbelievable bandwidth which is the big bottleneck on a lot of computers, Macs included.
I was thinking more of their Unix offerings when I made those statements.
Perhaps the intent of my message was not clear.
SGI has made a lot of great products. Their arrogance made them believe that as long as they made great products, they could maintain those huge margins and charge astronomical prices for their products.
Although there are still features in their hardware that can do things that no other computers can touch, they are not worth the money that they are asking.
So, my point is that Apple can probably get away with charging a small premium because of the uniqueness and quality of their products, but they need to be careful that the perceived value is there.
In other words, I am willing to pay a little more to use an operating system that I perceive to be superior. At some point though, the economic realities of price vs. value will have influence people's buying decisions.
Does that make any sense???
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: ryukyu ]

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>
post #25 of 32
It's not just about price. You also need Insanely Great specs and that, as others have pointed out, is what the iBook gives. I want an Insanely Great price and Insanely Great specs.
post #26 of 32
I certainly agree that it sure does appear that they are not really all that interested in going beyond their 3-5% marketshare. 1800 dollar flat panel iMucks ain't gonna do it.. hell for quite a bit cheaper, one can get a iBook, something that SHOULD represent what they need to do. It has all the cool Apple features, AND is priced competatively. It's the ONLY machine is their lineup that can boast this. Face it, all the other machines are designed to sell to the installed base. :eek:
post #27 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>Nader would for sure. Gore probably would, too. Clinton's justice department was ready to nip Microsoft's balls off, and since Gore is more liberal than Clinton, I'm sure he would have pushed this matter.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Gore probably would not have pushed for the breakup. Not in this economy... People would pin the whole thing on him (just like they are doing to bush and his tax cut <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> ) and he would not get re-elected.

Nader on the other hand even if he won would have conceded, he was just running to put the green party on the map when it comes to caimpaign contributions....

-Paul

Edit: Nader

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: psantora ]</p>
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #28 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>

d) Elect a president who's justice department will bust up the Microsoft monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The government should not and cannot perform the duties of the free market. I wanted Microsoft broken up just as much as many others did, which is quite uncharacteristic of a libertarian - I wanted them broken up just for GPs. Yet, if Apple and other companies wanted to unseat Microsoft, they could do just that. Apple will have another chance to do so, as long as MS continues to push draconian licensing schemes and .NET. Whether Apple chooses to position itself properly or not is up to SJ.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #29 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Big Mac:
<strong>
Yet, if Apple and other companies wanted to unseat Microsoft, they could do just that. Apple will have another chance to do so, as long as MS continues to push draconian licensing schemes and .NET. Whether Apple chooses to position itself properly or not is up to SJ.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Absolutely. There has never been a better time for this to happen, but like you said, Apple needs to get all of it's ducks in a row.
Well, you didn't exactly say it that way, but you know.....
post #30 of 32
iMac and iBook are NOT Apple's cash cows.

PowerMacs and TiBooks are. PM especially.

Last time I checked iBooks and iMacs gave about 4-6% margin while PM gave around 15-20%. Thats huge for a computer company.

Apple has no intention of taking on the 'big guys' any time soon people.

Apple has 5% of a huge market and effectively has a monopoly within that 5%. Why mess it all up?

Jobs said at a recent stockholder meeting that he was more than comfortable with 5% market share and obviously anything more would be great, but to remember that not even Mercedes or BMW have 5% of the car market and yet they are doing more than fine.

Its a good analogy to compare oneself to a quality product like BMW and Merc. Heck , I dont think even COMBINED they have 5% market share.

Despite this... I still very much like the UFO theory
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #31 of 32
sorry daily double

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #32 of 32
[quote]Apple has 5% of a huge market and effectively has a monopoly within that 5%. Why mess it all up?

Jobs said at a recent stockholder meeting that he was more than comfortable with 5% market share and obviously anything more would be great, but to remember that not even Mercedes or BMW have 5% of the car market and yet they are doing more than fine.<hr></blockquote>
Don't be delusional. If you think the Apple board is happy with 5%, then why all the expeditures for increased R&D, Apple stores and the iPOD foray into consumer electronics.

As to the auto market share, why bother with the comparison. BMW sold about 900,000 autos last year, at a conservative $35,000 per unit. Apple sold about 4.5 million units at about [lets be generous] $2,000 per unit. Who do you think is the happy camper?

If you think 5% market share is good and Apple is happy with that, don't complain about the lack of drivers for peripherals or games coming late [or not coming at all] or features missing from software.
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Above all, price will dictate success or failure