Jobs responds to outrage over MacBook's missing FireWire - Page 33

Well Mel pointed out earlier that business does not necessarily go for the cheapest solution. Quality counts in the full life of a product.

That's sales, 8.2% is usage.

http://www.maclife.com/sites/default...s_increased_82

Are you saying that 1.3% of those are Macs being sold aren't being used? That doesn't make sense. The stats you give are from internet usage from 40k difference websites. The 9.5% Gartner gives is more accurate and useful evaluation based on on unit sales.

No, I'm saying that people don't buy a new Mac every financial quarter. That 9.5% means percentage of new Apple computers bought. The 8.2% is the percentage of Mac OS X machines in service.

However price, even if it isn't the cheapest option, is a deciding factor. The vast amount of monitors for business use are not even 24 inch screens so that particular 24 inch Apple model is only appealing to a fragment of the market from the outset.

Businesses which require good quality visual output might be attracted to that model or might go over its head into the very high end market.

I suspect that Dell is rubbing its hands, happy to see Apple not charging into its monitor business. I hear that Dell has some very good quality 24 inch models at very good prices.

Most every product plays to a fragmented market in one way or another. The goal is to find a profitable fragment. Apple has been able to be extremely profitable without the need to sell to everyone.

I'm not sure Dell has very much to be happy about at this point. But I guess they have to take every small victory they can.

The article says marketshare, which is sales, not usage. The estimates as to usage, is that there are more Macs in use than marketshare would indicate. Total marketshare in the USA, according to the most recent numbers by IDC, I believe, is the 9.5% number.

When you said 'this is for business' I took it to mean business in general.



Which makes the missing firewire ports harder to swallow.

Dell is so very happy about their position right now that they are telling their employees to take a vacationwithout pay. Meanwhile, Apple has hired 11,000 more people this year.

Dell's lowball pricing has cost them dearly. It's only their much more expensive business lines, and services that keeps them in business.

Why should Apple try to operate that way?

Dell isn't making money selling its low priced models, so the need to make money other ways. This is one of them:

http://consumerist.com/tag/guilty/?i...siness-conduct

This is how they worked before, and how it's changing. You will see their problem. Too often they can't upsell, the results aren't pretty, so they are trying to change that, and prevent the customer from buying the cheapest, stripped down models they offer on sale so often.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2280994,00.asp

What does that have to do with companies purchasing Dell monitors? One thing are Dell's business practices in general and another is 'business' (the companies that buy Dell products). I've heard many positive comments about Dell's 24 inch monitors. I don't think many business will hold off buying at great prices because they want Dell to be more profitable.

Your first link points to a page where the quotes refer to consumers.

Read the computer world article its based on.

It's part of the overall problems Dell is having. Many small businesses buy their computers the way consumers do.

Monitors are but a small part of their business, as it is with Apple.

Dell makes some good monitors, and some bad ones. Nothing to talk about there.

There is good deal of controversy over the numbers they put out (Net Applications, that is).

Most think that their absolute numbers are not accurate, but that the trends they show, are. No one except them, know which sites they use, or how they choose them, If several big ones are oriented towards PC users, that will sway the numbers. We just don't know. They have been criticized on this many times. It's been said that they should give a listing of the sites they use, but they won't, as it's proprietary information.

I don't know anything about how this market operates but wouldn't that leave their stats wide open to manipulation? Surely interested parties would try to find ways to have an influence on the final results if they knew which sites to target. Do other companies publish their sample data details?

It's possible. But as it is, no one knows how they decide. They should at least explain that.

Some companies publish their sample data in an extract. It depends on what it is.

All we do know is that they have consistantly under reported the numbers. It's known the 9.5% of computers sold in the USA are Macs.

They don't even explain where their samples are located. Are a large number out of the USA? are they all English sites, or are some in other languages? How many are related to large business, government, entertainment, etc?

Is this 8.2% actually worldwide numbers?

To many unknowns.

So, what does this really mean?

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10#

You'll notice that the Geographic Filter only works when you pay for the report.

I went down to a big retailer (FNAC) this week to see if they had the new Seagate external drives. While I was there I checked the laptops and desktops for firewire ports.

Of 23 laptops on display, 21 had firewire ports. Of the 13 desktops on display, all of them had firewire ports. These figures do not include Macs as they are in an Appleshop within the store and separated from the rest of the PCs and we already know which macs have firewire.

You mean had firewire.

Which ones were they? It's almost impossible to believe. I rarely see more than a few with FW when I go to a large retailer.

The usual players: Sony, Toshiba, HP, Asus, Acer etc.

No, which models. It's easy to just throw a few names out there.

It was an informal thing. Spur of the moment. I didn't pull out pen and paper and write down the model numbers of 30+ computers. I went to see if they had the new Seagate drives.

If I get time to go back I'll jot down the model numbers.

I was quite surprised from a quick online search, how many low-end PC laptops come with FireWire.

I think it's pretty acceptable that they removed firewire but the REAL problem is the macbook pro.
Assume you won't buy the cheap macbook because you need firewire but you don't want the old white macbook. You want a mac. Now the only option is to buy the macbook pro however there's no 13" macbook pro so you need to buy a 15". It's not right. I'm waiting for a portable macbook pro for years.

There is a difference between having excessive options and options that fit your particular needs. If options are what you want, then nothing Apple has ever made, including the iPod, is for you. Apple is still very much a boutique-like computer maker. If the you must have FW400, and the $999 MacBook isn't stylish enough for your needs and the 15" notebook isn't small enoughthough it is quite portable by definition and designthen you have you have no choice but to choose one of the many other PC vendors.

The 4-pin IEEE1394 is quite common on non-Macs, but commodity PCs have a long history of adding ports for the sake of the "spec spankers". I doubt that more than a few are actually utilized.

PS: I was going through Amazon's top PC sales. I had to get to #43 before I find a non-Mac that wasn't a netbook. It's not too telling, but I found it interesting.

So, does the time period from 98-2005 where there was option just not exist or something? Please, don't try to revise history to cover up the number of options Apple has cut over the last couple of years.

Apple early 2005:
All models also have BTO options and both USB2.0 and firewire.

desktop
MacMini $499, $599
eMac $799, $999
iMac G5: $1299, 1499, 1899,
PowerMac G5: $1499, $1999, $2499, $2999

Notebook:
12" iBook: $999,
14" iBook, $1299, $1499
12" Powerbook: $1599, 1799
15" Powerbook: $1999, 2499
17: Powerbook: $2799

Apple has cut the eMac, entry level PowerMac, and large screen iBook. The 12" iBook and Powerbook were merged into the 13" Macbook (and basically split the price difference between the two) and raised the price on the Mini. What used to be a very attractive lineup now is very limited and confining.

Are you really arguing that because they offered something at one time they should always offer it in the future? The entire history of computing is a constant emergence and obsolescing of tech.

If it helps the platform and the company, yes. Dropping features and models make Apple and the Mac OS X a less attractive option. Now, if you buy a Mac you're doing for the hype and not computer related requirements. Apple is going to wake in the not too distant future and find a lot of its core base is now gone. Or at least what were its core base. The new base is trendy teenagers.

That is the Dell and HP way, but they don't seem to be making much money following that path, at least here in the US. It's a good thing there are cheaper and more expensive options from Apple with FW, and other vendors to choose from.

So unattractive, limited and confining that Apple is selling more macs than before.

I'm not amazed at how many more don't.

Apple tried with the 12". It was very popular, but only for a small group of people. That's why Apple discontinued it.

If they don't think that having another SKU will pay for them, they won't have one.

No, that's the computer selling way. the Dell and HP way is to sell computers based on the needs of the least capable users ala iMac and Macbook.


The problem comes if the professional base chooses those other vendors over Apple. Do you really what this platform to go from the choice of the best and brightest to platform of fads and cultists? I one for one would prefer the Mac be chosen for computing, not social reasons.


Lets talk again when we see what effects the new Macbook and Macbook Pro have first. Then again, you'd have and excuse for that anyhow. There is no way for Apple to be wrong with you is there?

The better selling ones do. In fact, the Macbook might be the only notebook over $1000 without firewire.

Limited and confining to whom?

To the ever increasing numbers of people who are moving to the Mac since Apple "cut" these lines?

Apple does what profitable companies do. They cut the "fat". If models aren't selling well enough to be continued, they are removed.

I find it interesting that in a report about Dell in the Times the other day, it was said that while it had increased its sales in its consumer computer division, it hasn't made a profit there.

I wonder why?

Well, one reason is that it tries to be there for everyone. It has far more models than Apple, in the effort to throw everything out there, and see what sticks.

I remember a few years ago when we were criticizing Creative for taking that approach to music player sales. Collectively, a good number may be sold, but individually, none sell very many, and it's hard to make a generalized profit.

The only way to do that is to cut the ones that don't sell that well, and boost the rest so that they do.

Apple gets this these days, from the days when THEY were criticized for having too many models.

They will never make everyone happy. But that's impossible anyway. No matter what they do, there will always be those who complain that Apple doesn't make the computer for THEM.

How long have we been complaining about the lack of an xMac?

Yet, Apple thrives.

That's the opinion of a few people here who want something Apple doesn't offer.

But the fact that their sales have been going up at several times the PC industries pace, shows that many don't agree with you on this.

So, most people in that situation will want one Mac, but will buy another, because what they are really buying into is the OS, not the hardware.

And even then, the hardware appeals.

I'll tell you something, from having dealt with, and been part of that professional base.

They are not going to desert the Mac because of the lack of some cheaper consumer machines.

Despite the idea a few here are trying to push, the vast majority of the TRUE professional base buys professional machines.

There are some who would like to THINK they are part of the professional base, but are more amateurs making some on the side, or low end scrapers who aren't making enough to fork over an extra $500 for a machine.

Does that sound insulting? It isn't. It's truth.

We have a number of people in our user group here in NYC who are in that category. They barely make enough to get by, and usually have other jobs as well.

It's tough on them, but then, they really don't need new machines every time they come out. The weight issue is a non-issue.

What are people claiming to be doing with these machines that another pound will be so destructive to?

It surely can't be color graphics, because the pro machines have much better screens.

It can't be any heavy processing, because the pro machines beat the consumer machines there as well. Can't be 3D for the same reason.

So what's the story?

Is it really the coolness factor?

It can't be professional needs. I don't know of pros who lug equipment around who would argue against another pound, and another couple of inches in size.

If, then, it's non demanding work, what's the big deal? If it's money, they buy a pro machine that's been refurbished by Apple.

Really? You know that for sure? You've checked to see that all the laptops above $,1000 have FW?

Those users are here because Apple is cool and are moving over from cheap Dells and HPs. They don't have exactly stellar needs they'll also leave if Apple isn't cool anymore or if mommy and daddy refuse to spend the extra money in this economy.


The eMac was selling very well and the PowerMac was a staple of their product lineup. Also, do you consider professional minded users who have been with Apple over a decade to be the fat?


Razor thin margins. Apple has shown that you can sell a similar computer for much more based on perception. The XPS and professional lines with high margins prop up the consumer and business lines where they make next to nothing.


Exactly high many iPods did Apple sell when they offered only one model on one platform with one connector? Things exploded when they started to diversify. Now they have the Shuffle, Nano, classic, touch, and iPhone in a wide array of configurations and price points. Should we cut this down to make things more profitable


Yeah in like '97 where they had 500 different beige models. Apple found a sweet spot where they did make a computer that everybody was happy with. We weren't happy with the performance of the PowerPCs and inability of IBM/Motorola to create a competitive mobile chip, but we were happy with configuration the lineup.


xMac as Affordable Tower: Late 2005 when they made the PowerMac unaffordable.
xMac as first envisioned (Mac workstation) was realized with the introduction of the MacPro. X= high end professional ala xServe. It unfortunately replaced the Powermac line instead of augmenting it.


As a fad based consumer electronics company. Fads don't last and they're already trying to shove the Professional and semi professional users out the door. That doesn't put Apple or Mac OS X in a very good position in a couple of years.