Originally Posted by jwdawso
Is that the best you got?
What is that nutty comment supposed to mean?
You have nothing to say, so you write that?
What were those great reasons for the cube? Besides lowering the price? Keep in mind that the cube just made the same margin as a PowerMac, so the price could not be lowered.
If you were around for those discussions, you would have seen some good analysis.
Apple came out with a completely upgradable machine, which they then failed to advertise as one.
They came out with it as a G4 machine, which at the time was a very expensive situation. If they came out with it as a G3, then is could have been as much as 30% cheaper.
Those were two of the biggest reasons, but there were others as well.
So your vision of Apple is that Apple competes head-to-head with ViewSonic, Sony, etc on monitors? And HP, Epson, & Canon on scanners/printers? Then your vision and Apple's appear to be different, because you are attracted to commodities that require hugh investments to stay competitive, while Apple invests in innovative products that allow high margins. Maybe Apple should turn into Gateway?
That's an narrow minded statement.
You think I was the only one to notice this, and comment badly about it?
You would be very wrong.
I can tell you from personal experience that ad agencies, Tv stations, and design houses were buying Apple's Studio monitors in great numbers, as were video, photo, and graphic pros. That was the market the monitors were intended for, and Apple was very successful in selling monitors into it. If you knew anything about them, and you can look it up now, before you reply, you will see that they WERE innovative.
By your theory, Apple immediately came out with new printers (they never did again), new scanners (ditto there too), and new, competitive monitors (forget it!).
None of that happened.
Even Apple's digital camera, one of the very first on the market, which sold well, and was considered to be a bargain at the time, was discontinued after the second model. Apple could have owned a fair part of that market if they tried, it had sold well.
I vote for Steve Jobs approach - let the followers churn out the commodities.
As Apple becomes a bigger company, they will have to have more products.
It will take the failure of just one highly touted product to send Apple's stock into a tailspin otherwise. Understanding that is just good business.