Businesses who need to hire IT personal usually to fix other things besides Windows.
Even a company filled with just Mac's needs IT personnel, to maintain servers, data, backups, hardware maintenance, upgrades and hand holding/teaching.
It only takes a few minutes of actual labor to reinstall Windows if it's hosed. Take the machine into the shop and "ghost" the drive from a master and go do something else while that's working. Return the machine in a hour, it's that simple.
Another fact is that most people know and businesses use Windows and Office, schools teach it, the business world uses it. It's done, no possible penetration possible, even free OpenOffice hasn't made any real headway.
Another fact is OS X is tied to hardware, if your business needs matte screen laptops for the road warriors, Apple doesn't sell them except in a very few models. So choice of hardware is another problem, Toughbook with OS X? Dream on!
Apple doesn't give a rats ass, they want to sell flashy devices to home consumers and be absolutely no threat to Microsoft and the PC industry at all.
Forget all about OS X taking over the world, it's not going to happen. Apple is already introducing a new closed UI on consumer devices and that's going to be their market.
You want a real computer 10 years from now? It will be a Windows machine.
Sure a few companies can save money by going all Mac, but Apple is flaky and so is their hardware choices. Try getting video card upgrades for your Apple towers over the years and you'll see what I mean.
Also most Mac's are closed boxes, this makes it difficult to remove drive and service the device in house. The whole machine (and your companies private data) goes off to lala land to be fixed.
Since it's so easy to clone a Windows machine from a master, the benefits of going all Mac in business doesn't offset the drawbacks and limited hardware choices Apple provides.
Steve got that money from Gates to breath life into Apple and not to be a threat to his empire by going off into another direction. Apple Computer>Apple etc.
Sorry that's the truth and that comes from a 20 year Mac veteran.
Wow.This statement contains another 4 or 5 of the top ten lamest critiques. Impressive
Word of advice: claiming to be "a 20 year Mac veteran" does not make your statement any more credible or true.
I'll play along, though: I'm a MSCE-certified IT specialist, and 3 of the (fairly large) companies that I do some freelance IT troubleshooting for recently switched to all Apple solutions. The money they saved on IT costs alone allowed these companies to hire more regular personnel. I still do IT work for each of these companies because, in addition to being a certified Windows specialist, I'm also a "20 year Mac veteran".
You've actually hit on the main reason most IT guys are afraid to advise their companies to go Apple: fear of losing their job.
Wow.This statement contains another 4 or 5 of the top ten lamest critiques. Impressive
Word of advice: claiming to be "a 20 year Mac veteran" does not make your statement any more credible or true.
I'll play along, though: I'm a MSCE-certified IT specialist, and 3 of the (fairly large) companies that I do some freelance IT troubleshooting for recently switched to all Apple solutions. The money they saved on IT costs alone allowed these companies to hire more regular personnel. I still do IT work for each of these companies because, in addition to being a certified Windows specialist, I'm also a "20 year Mac veteran".
You've actually hit on the main reason most IT guys are afraid to advise their companies to go Apple: fear of losing their job.
Apple is nowhere near the market leaders in unit sales.
Businesses run on profits, not on units.
Profits (quarter): Acer = $60m Apple $1230m
Annual Income: Acer $3.6b Apple $8.34
Acer are "bigger" than Apple because they are making cheap netbooks and selling them to make a $15 profit on each one. This trick fool the markets into thinking Acer is big.
In terms of revenue - which is the largest personal computer manufacturer in the US?
I am waiting to see what Apple's price point will be. I think a tablet will be great, and knowing Apple their product will be awesome but I do not want to spend a fortune on it. If the competition can come in well under Apple on price, I will forgo a few bells and whistles to save a few hundred bucks. On the other hand if the gap is very small then Apple all the way.
Price is going to be absolutely critical. If you already have an iPhone and a MacBook/MBP then this 'in between' device is going to be a luxury unless it's very affordable. Obviously affordable is different for different people, but really you're looking at sub $500 if you want existing Mac and iPhone owners to jump in.
The other thing is content, and Apple may be getting into troube in regards content, as Disney and Apple have not signed up for DECE (Digital Entertainment Eco System) and seem to be going it alone on Video. I am seeing this thing as potentially a portable Apple TV with no OS X functionality or an Intel Chipset for compatibility. Although the usual fanatics will buy one, it has the potential to flop if there's no 'Killer App' for it.
I agree. Apple was not first in the MP3 player market, but came
to dominate it. Same thing might happen in the tablet space.
They are not dominating the phone space, however, but instead are in third place.
And on the desktop, their sales are dwarfed by alternative choices.
But all they really care about is the bottom line, and at this point, they are doing well there.
They may be in third place (which is an impressive feat in and of itself in only 2.5 years), but they command much higher margins off the iPhone than every other phone company out there which puts their earnings in first or second place. Again, very impressive for a company with releases 1 model per year. But more importantly, Apple has single-handedly changed the fundamentals of what what a phone is suppose to do and brought it to the mainstream. In essence, some may argue that mindshare is sometimes more important than marketshare.
Not counting what Apple has up their sleeve, i.e., surely we will be surprised, I am talking it up and telling everybody to wait. Not that I have to because most of the stuff being shown at the CES are concept only. That is waiting to see what they have to copy from Apple.
The Apple Advantage
The iPhone OS
iTunes
The iTunes Store
The iTunes U
The iTunes iPhone Apps
All 120,000 plus of them
Thousand of iPhone app developers (consumer/enterprise) just waiting for a bigger screen
The "competition" has geared up to sell glorified bathroom web-browswers. In 2010 Apple is going to show how its is done with a Tablet that redefines seamless ubiquitous computing. After that the competition will quietly discontinue their line of updated crapware and go back to the drawing board to figure out a better way to trick the consumer into thinking they are buying an Apple tablet for less money.
BTW, to whomever claimed that Apple's sales pale in comparison to the alternatives, this is true if you compare Apple against everyone else, but when you compare Apple against any other single company (which is the more fair comparison), they're not doing too bad.
You mean profits, not volume of course.
Apple does cater to the high end niche consumer market. It would be nice if they also had a branch off in the cheaper business market with more expandable and upgradable options.
Many companies make the same devices with two different brand names, refrigerators for example. Look carefully and sometimes one will catch two very similar machines in the store with different stickers. One a well known brand and other a off brand. Perhaps this isn't as easy to do in the computer market as refrigerators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
same with a Mac. i do it all the time.
My point was that it doesn't take a lot of human time to rebuild Windows so there really isn't much IT savings. It's automated mostly.
Windows insecurity is job security.
Quote:
thing is that most businesses with road warriors aren't going to go for a 13 inch laptop. they will start at a 15. and typically they lean towards the high end so they have machines that won't be junk in a year or two. so going and getting that 2.8 Macbook pro ain't a huge deal. Especially since most areas have at least one store with a business associate and if you are buying in bulk or buy a lot over time there are discounts. they aren't huge but certainly they offset the $50 for the matte screen.
Apple had both matte and glossy laptops, then only the 17", then when I got in touch with Steve he brought back the 15" but now it's only on the high end 15" model.
So you see, no consistency.
If Dell stops selling matte screen laptops, there is other vendors like Lenevo that will. It doesn't require a OS, software and learning change, you just keep the same Windows and software.
Quote:
plus if something goes wrong with the computer, pretty much every major city in the US and a number overseas has an Apple store. which makes it real easy to find help. and help that is trained on your machine type (unlike places like Best Buy where they might know, might not)
Companies that sell computers to business typically have some sort of hardware support option included in the contract that works with the IT department.
So if something breaks outside what a typical in house IT personnel can fix, at least the hard drive can be removed before service and placed into another computer that the service guy brings when they pick up the old one. Very little downtime. Does Apple do this? Not!
With closed hardware Mac's, it's like Apple needs to hold people's hands and doesn't want them opening their machines.
Two different markets and approaches.
Quote:
fact is that I've seen a lot of Macs used in businesses and some of them are 10 years old, give or take a year. they might not be doing big fancy things, but they work for what the owners need.
So have I, believe it or not, good Windows machines off the internet can last a considerably long time as well. Windows is insecurity by design in order to drive software and hardware sales.
Quote:
so in the end that's really the key. what are you doing with it. that decides if you go windows or mac. because for many a 'real computer' in the sense of biggest, baddest bits with the lowest price isn't the game. the game is if it can do what needs to be done in the best possible way.
Mac's have lost their "desktop publishing" niche as software is available for either platform now.
If MS beats their security problems, then there isn't anything left to make a Mac better really.
Quote:
For an accountant, it's likely Windows cause number crunching is number crunching.
but a high end editing house in LA is likely to use Final Cut, Logic etc. either just on Macs or with Mac connected to a Unix/Linux based render farm. but rarely will you see them using a Windows system.
Apple has small niches here and there, but the broader market is Windows. Apple really isn't threatening that neither.
Because if they were, they would at least come out with a sub $1000 expandable tower to offer value to business customers.
Instead they come out with a above $1000 MacPro with a metal case so big it doesn't fit under a typical computer desk.
Except, Apple does not distribute any profit to their shareholders.
*
Wow. I didn't realize that they have never declared a dividend. They are an old-time, big-ass multinational corporation, and I just assumed that they declared occasional dividends.
I guess my statement should have been "provide value for the shareholders" instead.
I predict the price point will be over a thousand bucks. We are talking about the same company that made the MacBook Air. $1800 bucks, no DVD drive, no ethernet, no firewire, etc. But sexy as hell.
And lest we forget the original iPhone. $500 bucks, no physical keyboard, no 3G, no GPS, no video. But sexy as hell.
The iTab (my favorite name) will retail for $1500 bucks, be missing features other tablets have and will probably be tied to AT&T for it's content. I hope not, but probably so.
Well AT&T isn't tied to most iPhones that have been sold so there's no reason that Apple would think that it's a good idea to link any phone company to the tablet. If anything the archaic tied handset/phone company deal situation in the US is now surely proven to be such a dead and buried concept that I'd imagine that they'd do anything to avoid it again.
Acer are "bigger" than Apple because they are making cheap netbooks and selling them to make a $15 profit on each one. This trick fool the markets into thinking Acer is big.
In terms of revenue - which is the largest personal computer manufacturer in the US?
C.
Your points are all correct. But the points address a different topic.
Apple has done very well with its low-volume high-profit strategy. They are like Bang & Olufsen, making beautiful tech-forward products that work well enough, with premium prices (if one considers bang/buck), which sell to a small, but enthusiastic and satisfied market.
I'm a MSCE-certified IT specialist, and 3 of the (fairly large) companies that I do some freelance IT troubleshooting for recently switched to all Apple solutions. The money they saved on IT costs alone allowed these companies to hire more regular personnel. I still do IT work for each of these companies because, in addition to being a certified Windows specialist, I'm also a "20 year Mac veteran".
I'm not arguing that Mac's can save companies IT money, that's a fact.
The fact is it costs in other areas:
1: Retraining
2: Machines can't be serviced in house as most Mac's are closed devices.
3: Privacy and security, hard drives can't be removed from most Mac's.
4: Lack of hardware choices from Apple. OS X tie-in to their hardware.
5: Not enough software choices or third party software only on larger market share Windows.
Mac's can be cheaper in IT costs if:
1: The company is close to a Apple Authorized repair.
2: Software used is general in nature like on PC's or specialized for Mac's requiring their hardware.
3: Hardware needs matches what Apple provides.
4: Security and privacy is not a issue.
5: Employees already use Mac's or trained that way in school.
Quote:
You've actually hit on the main reason most IT guys are afraid to advise their companies to go Apple: fear of losing their job.
The only IT personnel afraid of losing their job is the Windows only types.
To most IT, a computer is a computer, if it's running Windows, Linux, Unix or OS X. The hardware requirements are the same in house.
Windows does make more work for IT, but it's nothing when you can simply ghost a drive and reinstall. Backups, mirroring and other techniques secure a copy of the data at various time points so one can go back and restore is also automated.
Despite all of Windows flaws, solutions have been made before Apple even reappeared from the dead.
Now instead of arguing that Mac's save in IT costs, you can argue that Mac's save in company downtime costs.
After all, if a virus is lose and it hoses the Windows machines repeatedly via the internet which the company depends upon for it's income, and IT simply has to wait for a patch from whomever, that is losing the company a lot of money.
A all Mac solution will certainly save the day and the company a lot of money. If it met what Apple provides.
Also if Microsoft couldn't or refused to fix Windows, but it does and it does improve, just slowly. Just enough not to embolden competition.
However, the argument is of course if OS X had the market share Windows has, wouldn't it be just as insecure?
We can't know that for sure, because OS X doesn't have it and Linux has had it's share of problems despite it's more secure "unix like" design on servers.
So why go with a complete OS change, limited hardware choices and repair options when the same thing will occur with OS X as Windows?
Why put all your eggs in the Apple hardware basket?
Don't get me wrong, I like Apple. It's just they have not paid any attention to the business market and their needs.
Apple isn't going to make more hardware and not going to seperate OS X from their hardware, so that leaves them a niche consumer company and that's where they will remain.
It's profitable sure, but it's not ruling the world.
Generally, it is a good idea to buy low, rather than after a stock has quickly doubled. Generally, it is a good idea to buy on early rumors, and if the stock has performed, to sell right before the news.
Not always. Buying Apple now might be a home run. Then again, if you used your strategy when the Cube was just over the horizon...
Its your money, and my crystal ball remains cloudy.
The "competition" has geared up to sell glorified bathroom web-browswers. In 2010 Apple is going to show how its is done with a Tablet that redefines seamless ubiquitous computing. After that the competition will quietly discontinue their line of updated crapware and go back to the drawing board to figure out a better way to trick the consumer into thinking they are buying an Apple tablet for less money.
Wait for the inevitable drop at the end of this month, then load up for future growth. The Wal-Mart approach to Apps (good, better, best) and music and movies, and possibly books, magazine and newspaper subscriptions is going to propel Apple into uncharted territory.
Apple caters to the home consumers, that's their market and they fight hard against any competition in that area. Their products are designed with a high lust factor and invoke impulsive purchases and even theft. Some people even buy Apple's hardware with no real need for the device itself, rather just to buy a new toy.
MacBook Pros invoke impulse purchases? iMacs invoke impulse purchases? Isn't it just as probable that super cheap PCs sold at Walmart are being bought on impulse? Hey look, a PC with a printer and an LCD for $250, let's pick one up for the kid's room....
Also, "some people" buy PCs because they accidently confused them with toasters. What mythical "some people" do is not an argument for or against anything.
Quote:
The iPods in their various forms and price points are high on the list of impulsive purchases. Many people bought them not even knowing it required a computer to use them. (reports are this holiday season iPods sold extremely well)
Yes, iPods can be impulse purchases. Also, "many people" bought Zunes who were under the impression that they were Xboxes. Again, fatuous claims about what non-specific "people" are doing are a very weak form of argumentation.
Quote:
Apple cares less about the drab market, businesses like drab because it's serious and employees don't steal the hardware.
"Drab" and "serious" are not synonymous. In fact, "drab" and "poorly designed" are not synonymous, as the legions of blinky lighted, port bristling, racing striped PC hardware will attest. For that matter, Apple's laptops aren't particularly flashy, just solidly built. The old "Macs are about eye candy, PCs are about work" canard is entirely baseless, at this point, if it ever had merit. The real point of distinction is that Apple doesn't compete in the razor thin margin discount segment of the market. Look at Windows 7 and tell me that PCs are about grim productivity-- there's more bling in that OS than Apple ever dreamed of. In fact, nowadays you hear the PC crowd mocking Apple for being insufficiently flashy, claiming that OS X is "drab" and the iPhone OS is "dated" (compared to the bling heavy Zune HD).
Also, the idea that business buys less desirable hardware to prevent theft is an odd one. "Desirability" surely has some relationship to functionality, so to make sense you'd have to argue that businesses are obliged to equip their employees with shoddy, poor performing computers, to make sure they don't steal them. Unless you imagine that employees have no interested in stealing spartan looking hardware that works really well, which kind of gets to the heart of the matter.
Quote:
Businesses look at computer and software purchases with a critical eye for the bottom line, getting the most value for their money, looks are not really important, except in their creative departments. Businesses are in business to make money, not spend it on a whim if a device changes color or gets a new feature like emotional appealing consumer would.
I think you're getting computers mixed up with iPods. The design of the desktop and laptop Macs has been remarkably stable for the last number of years-- probably more so than the average Dell, which has models coming and going like a cheap hotel. Again, the real difference between Macs and PCs isn't some mythical bling vs. button down, but the vast array of cheap commodity boxes available with Windows installed. Cheap is cheap, not somehow more hardworking or serious.
Quote:
Apple changed their name from Apple Computer for a reason, they are planing on exiting the computer industry and focusing on being a consumer products company that makes devices people can easily use, not much anymore on real computers that require a lot of thought and a steep learning curve.
And as long as the people running the other computer companies think like you, Apple will have a pretty good time of it. If you can't distinguish between "ease of use" and "real computing", or good, integrated design from flashy (or that idea's obverse, that crummy design and cheap automatically equals "serious"), you're prey to a fundamental, limiting prejudice.
MacBook Pros invoke impulse purchases? iMacs invoke impulse purchases? Isn't it just as probable that super cheap PCs sold at Walmart are being bought on impulse? Hey look, a PC with a printer and an LCD for $250, let's pick one up for the kid's room....
Also, "some people" buy PCs because they accidently confused them with toasters. What mythical "some people" do is not an argument for or against anything.
Yes, iPods can be impulse purchases. Also, "many people" bought Zunes who were under the impression that they were Xboxes. Again, fatuous claims about what non-specific "people" are doing are a very weak form of argumentation.
"Drab" and "serious" are not synonymous. In fact, "drab" and "poorly designed" are not synonymous, as the legions of blinky lighted, port bristling, racing striped PC hardware will attest. For that matter, Apple's laptops aren't particularly flashy, just solidly built. The old "Macs are about eye candy, PCs are about work" canard is entirely baseless, at this point, if it ever had merit. The real point of distinction is that Apple doesn't compete in the razor thin margin discount segment of the market. Look at Windows 7 and tell me that PCs are about grim productivity-- there's more bling in that OS than Apple ever dreamed of. In fact, nowadays you hear the PC crowd mocking Apple for being insufficiently flashy, claiming that OS X is "drab" and the iPhone OS is "dated" (compared to the bling heavy Zune HD).
I think you're getting computers mixed up with iPods. The design of the desktop and laptop Macs has been remarkably stable for the last number of years-- probably more so than the average Dell, which has models coming and going like a cheap hotel. Again, the real difference between Macs and PCs isn't some mythical bling vs. button down, but the vast array of cheap commodity boxes available with Windows installed. Cheap is cheap, not somehow more hardworking or serious.
And as long as the people running the other computer companies think like you, Apple will have a pretty good time of it. If you can't distinguish between "ease of use" and "real computing", or good, integrated design from flashy, you're prey to a fundamental, limiting prejudice.
Sounds more like a emotional rant that a argument, what are your points?
Your points are all correct. But the points address a different topic.
Apple has done very well with its low-volume high-profit strategy. They are like Bang & Olufsen, making beautiful tech-forward products that work well enough, with premium prices (if one considers bang/buck), which sell to a small, but enthusiastic and satisfied market.
Your point misses my main point.
Which personal computer manufacturer makes the most revenue in the US?
I think it is Apple (even when we remove iPhone and iPod revenues)
Generally, it is a good idea to buy low, rather than after a stock has quickly doubled. Generally, it is a good idea to buy on early rumors, and if the stock has performed, to sell right before the news.
Not always. Buying Apple now might be a home run. Then again, if you used your strategy when the Cube was just over the horizon...
Its your money, and my crystal ball remains cloudy.
It's more than cloudy, I'd call it broken. For someone who invested 12 years ago, AAPL has returned over 4,000%. When during those 12 years would it have been "generally" not a good idea to buy, or "generally" a good time to sell? The first time it quickly doubled? The second? The third? The fourth?
That's the problem with rules of thumb. They have to cope with the real world, which doesn't behave itself according to rules of thumb.
I never give advice on when to buy and sell stocks. But if you're going to invest in individual stocks, buy companies you have reason to expect will grow, not according to some arbitrary rule. And don't try to time the market. Even the pros can't do that consistently.
Also, FWIW, Apple did pay a dividend to stockholders, a very small one, until the mid-1990s.
I don’t think these others have made a tablet for CES simply because they think Apple is coming out with one. I think tech has shifted to make it more viable now than in year’s past, which is why I think this is indirect proof of Apple coming to market with their own offering.
The Notion device has some compelling tech but that won’t make it a good product if the UI and UX are subpar. So far I’ve seen no tablet that makes me say, “I want/need that!”.
I’ve been saying for awhile now this is the year of the tablet and media extender. So far I appear to be half right. \
Comments
Like your optimism but here are the facts.
Businesses who need to hire IT personal usually to fix other things besides Windows.
Even a company filled with just Mac's needs IT personnel, to maintain servers, data, backups, hardware maintenance, upgrades and hand holding/teaching.
It only takes a few minutes of actual labor to reinstall Windows if it's hosed. Take the machine into the shop and "ghost" the drive from a master and go do something else while that's working. Return the machine in a hour, it's that simple.
Another fact is that most people know and businesses use Windows and Office, schools teach it, the business world uses it. It's done, no possible penetration possible, even free OpenOffice hasn't made any real headway.
Another fact is OS X is tied to hardware, if your business needs matte screen laptops for the road warriors, Apple doesn't sell them except in a very few models. So choice of hardware is another problem, Toughbook with OS X? Dream on!
Apple doesn't give a rats ass, they want to sell flashy devices to home consumers and be absolutely no threat to Microsoft and the PC industry at all.
Forget all about OS X taking over the world, it's not going to happen. Apple is already introducing a new closed UI on consumer devices and that's going to be their market.
You want a real computer 10 years from now? It will be a Windows machine.
Sure a few companies can save money by going all Mac, but Apple is flaky and so is their hardware choices. Try getting video card upgrades for your Apple towers over the years and you'll see what I mean.
Also most Mac's are closed boxes, this makes it difficult to remove drive and service the device in house. The whole machine (and your companies private data) goes off to lala land to be fixed.
Since it's so easy to clone a Windows machine from a master, the benefits of going all Mac in business doesn't offset the drawbacks and limited hardware choices Apple provides.
Steve got that money from Gates to breath life into Apple and not to be a threat to his empire by going off into another direction. Apple Computer>Apple etc.
Sorry that's the truth and that comes from a 20 year Mac veteran.
Wow.This statement contains another 4 or 5 of the top ten lamest critiques. Impressive
Word of advice: claiming to be "a 20 year Mac veteran" does not make your statement any more credible or true.
I'll play along, though: I'm a MSCE-certified IT specialist, and 3 of the (fairly large) companies that I do some freelance IT troubleshooting for recently switched to all Apple solutions. The money they saved on IT costs alone allowed these companies to hire more regular personnel. I still do IT work for each of these companies because, in addition to being a certified Windows specialist, I'm also a "20 year Mac veteran".
You've actually hit on the main reason most IT guys are afraid to advise their companies to go Apple: fear of losing their job.
Wow.This statement contains another 4 or 5 of the top ten lamest critiques. Impressive
Word of advice: claiming to be "a 20 year Mac veteran" does not make your statement any more credible or true.
I'll play along, though: I'm a MSCE-certified IT specialist, and 3 of the (fairly large) companies that I do some freelance IT troubleshooting for recently switched to all Apple solutions. The money they saved on IT costs alone allowed these companies to hire more regular personnel. I still do IT work for each of these companies because, in addition to being a certified Windows specialist, I'm also a "20 year Mac veteran".
You've actually hit on the main reason most IT guys are afraid to advise their companies to go Apple: fear of losing their job.
Very well put.
Apple is nowhere near the market leaders in unit sales.
Businesses run on profits, not on units.
Profits (quarter): Acer = $60m Apple $1230m
Annual Income: Acer $3.6b Apple $8.34
Acer are "bigger" than Apple because they are making cheap netbooks and selling them to make a $15 profit on each one. This trick fool the markets into thinking Acer is big.
In terms of revenue - which is the largest personal computer manufacturer in the US?
C.
I am waiting to see what Apple's price point will be. I think a tablet will be great, and knowing Apple their product will be awesome but I do not want to spend a fortune on it. If the competition can come in well under Apple on price, I will forgo a few bells and whistles to save a few hundred bucks. On the other hand if the gap is very small then Apple all the way.
Price is going to be absolutely critical. If you already have an iPhone and a MacBook/MBP then this 'in between' device is going to be a luxury unless it's very affordable. Obviously affordable is different for different people, but really you're looking at sub $500 if you want existing Mac and iPhone owners to jump in.
The other thing is content, and Apple may be getting into troube in regards content, as Disney and Apple have not signed up for DECE (Digital Entertainment Eco System) and seem to be going it alone on Video. I am seeing this thing as potentially a portable Apple TV with no OS X functionality or an Intel Chipset for compatibility. Although the usual fanatics will buy one, it has the potential to flop if there's no 'Killer App' for it.
I agree. Apple was not first in the MP3 player market, but came
to dominate it. Same thing might happen in the tablet space.
They are not dominating the phone space, however, but instead are in third place.
And on the desktop, their sales are dwarfed by alternative choices.
But all they really care about is the bottom line, and at this point, they are doing well there.
They may be in third place (which is an impressive feat in and of itself in only 2.5 years), but they command much higher margins off the iPhone than every other phone company out there which puts their earnings in first or second place. Again, very impressive for a company with releases 1 model per year. But more importantly, Apple has single-handedly changed the fundamentals of what what a phone is suppose to do and brought it to the mainstream. In essence, some may argue that mindshare is sometimes more important than marketshare.
The "competition" has geared up to sell glorified bathroom web-browswers. In 2010 Apple is going to show how its is done with a Tablet that redefines seamless ubiquitous computing. After that the competition will quietly discontinue their line of updated crapware and go back to the drawing board to figure out a better way to trick the consumer into thinking they are buying an Apple tablet for less money.
randyhyde@me.com
BTW, to whomever claimed that Apple's sales pale in comparison to the alternatives, this is true if you compare Apple against everyone else, but when you compare Apple against any other single company (which is the more fair comparison), they're not doing too bad.
You mean profits, not volume of course.
Apple does cater to the high end niche consumer market. It would be nice if they also had a branch off in the cheaper business market with more expandable and upgradable options.
Many companies make the same devices with two different brand names, refrigerators for example. Look carefully and sometimes one will catch two very similar machines in the store with different stickers. One a well known brand and other a off brand. Perhaps this isn't as easy to do in the computer market as refrigerators.
same with a Mac. i do it all the time.
My point was that it doesn't take a lot of human time to rebuild Windows so there really isn't much IT savings. It's automated mostly.
Windows insecurity is job security.
thing is that most businesses with road warriors aren't going to go for a 13 inch laptop. they will start at a 15. and typically they lean towards the high end so they have machines that won't be junk in a year or two. so going and getting that 2.8 Macbook pro ain't a huge deal. Especially since most areas have at least one store with a business associate and if you are buying in bulk or buy a lot over time there are discounts. they aren't huge but certainly they offset the $50 for the matte screen.
Apple had both matte and glossy laptops, then only the 17", then when I got in touch with Steve he brought back the 15" but now it's only on the high end 15" model.
So you see, no consistency.
If Dell stops selling matte screen laptops, there is other vendors like Lenevo that will. It doesn't require a OS, software and learning change, you just keep the same Windows and software.
plus if something goes wrong with the computer, pretty much every major city in the US and a number overseas has an Apple store. which makes it real easy to find help. and help that is trained on your machine type (unlike places like Best Buy where they might know, might not)
Companies that sell computers to business typically have some sort of hardware support option included in the contract that works with the IT department.
So if something breaks outside what a typical in house IT personnel can fix, at least the hard drive can be removed before service and placed into another computer that the service guy brings when they pick up the old one. Very little downtime. Does Apple do this? Not!
With closed hardware Mac's, it's like Apple needs to hold people's hands and doesn't want them opening their machines.
Two different markets and approaches.
fact is that I've seen a lot of Macs used in businesses and some of them are 10 years old, give or take a year. they might not be doing big fancy things, but they work for what the owners need.
So have I, believe it or not, good Windows machines off the internet can last a considerably long time as well. Windows is insecurity by design in order to drive software and hardware sales.
so in the end that's really the key. what are you doing with it. that decides if you go windows or mac. because for many a 'real computer' in the sense of biggest, baddest bits with the lowest price isn't the game. the game is if it can do what needs to be done in the best possible way.
Mac's have lost their "desktop publishing" niche as software is available for either platform now.
If MS beats their security problems, then there isn't anything left to make a Mac better really.
For an accountant, it's likely Windows cause number crunching is number crunching.
but a high end editing house in LA is likely to use Final Cut, Logic etc. either just on Macs or with Mac connected to a Unix/Linux based render farm. but rarely will you see them using a Windows system.
Apple has small niches here and there, but the broader market is Windows. Apple really isn't threatening that neither.
Because if they were, they would at least come out with a sub $1000 expandable tower to offer value to business customers.
Instead they come out with a above $1000 MacPro with a metal case so big it doesn't fit under a typical computer desk.
Mmmm...
Except, Apple does not distribute any profit to their shareholders.
*
Wow. I didn't realize that they have never declared a dividend. They are an old-time, big-ass multinational corporation, and I just assumed that they declared occasional dividends.
I guess my statement should have been "provide value for the shareholders" instead.
I predict the price point will be over a thousand bucks. We are talking about the same company that made the MacBook Air. $1800 bucks, no DVD drive, no ethernet, no firewire, etc. But sexy as hell.
And lest we forget the original iPhone. $500 bucks, no physical keyboard, no 3G, no GPS, no video. But sexy as hell.
The iTab (my favorite name) will retail for $1500 bucks, be missing features other tablets have and will probably be tied to AT&T for it's content. I hope not, but probably so.
Well AT&T isn't tied to most iPhones that have been sold so there's no reason that Apple would think that it's a good idea to link any phone company to the tablet. If anything the archaic tied handset/phone company deal situation in the US is now surely proven to be such a dead and buried concept that I'd imagine that they'd do anything to avoid it again.
Businesses run on profits, not on units.
Profits (quarter): Acer = $60m Apple $1230m
Annual Income: Acer $3.6b Apple $8.34
Acer are "bigger" than Apple because they are making cheap netbooks and selling them to make a $15 profit on each one. This trick fool the markets into thinking Acer is big.
In terms of revenue - which is the largest personal computer manufacturer in the US?
C.
Your points are all correct. But the points address a different topic.
Apple has done very well with its low-volume high-profit strategy. They are like Bang & Olufsen, making beautiful tech-forward products that work well enough, with premium prices (if one considers bang/buck), which sell to a small, but enthusiastic and satisfied market.
I'm a MSCE-certified IT specialist, and 3 of the (fairly large) companies that I do some freelance IT troubleshooting for recently switched to all Apple solutions. The money they saved on IT costs alone allowed these companies to hire more regular personnel. I still do IT work for each of these companies because, in addition to being a certified Windows specialist, I'm also a "20 year Mac veteran".
I'm not arguing that Mac's can save companies IT money, that's a fact.
The fact is it costs in other areas:
1: Retraining
2: Machines can't be serviced in house as most Mac's are closed devices.
3: Privacy and security, hard drives can't be removed from most Mac's.
4: Lack of hardware choices from Apple. OS X tie-in to their hardware.
5: Not enough software choices or third party software only on larger market share Windows.
Mac's can be cheaper in IT costs if:
1: The company is close to a Apple Authorized repair.
2: Software used is general in nature like on PC's or specialized for Mac's requiring their hardware.
3: Hardware needs matches what Apple provides.
4: Security and privacy is not a issue.
5: Employees already use Mac's or trained that way in school.
You've actually hit on the main reason most IT guys are afraid to advise their companies to go Apple: fear of losing their job.
The only IT personnel afraid of losing their job is the Windows only types.
To most IT, a computer is a computer, if it's running Windows, Linux, Unix or OS X. The hardware requirements are the same in house.
Windows does make more work for IT, but it's nothing when you can simply ghost a drive and reinstall. Backups, mirroring and other techniques secure a copy of the data at various time points so one can go back and restore is also automated.
Despite all of Windows flaws, solutions have been made before Apple even reappeared from the dead.
Now instead of arguing that Mac's save in IT costs, you can argue that Mac's save in company downtime costs.
After all, if a virus is lose and it hoses the Windows machines repeatedly via the internet which the company depends upon for it's income, and IT simply has to wait for a patch from whomever, that is losing the company a lot of money.
A all Mac solution will certainly save the day and the company a lot of money. If it met what Apple provides.
Also if Microsoft couldn't or refused to fix Windows, but it does and it does improve, just slowly. Just enough not to embolden competition.
However, the argument is of course if OS X had the market share Windows has, wouldn't it be just as insecure?
We can't know that for sure, because OS X doesn't have it and Linux has had it's share of problems despite it's more secure "unix like" design on servers.
So why go with a complete OS change, limited hardware choices and repair options when the same thing will occur with OS X as Windows?
Why put all your eggs in the Apple hardware basket?
Don't get me wrong, I like Apple. It's just they have not paid any attention to the business market and their needs.
Apple isn't going to make more hardware and not going to seperate OS X from their hardware, so that leaves them a niche consumer company and that's where they will remain.
It's profitable sure, but it's not ruling the world.
It is time to buy even more Apple stock.
Generally, it is a good idea to buy low, rather than after a stock has quickly doubled. Generally, it is a good idea to buy on early rumors, and if the stock has performed, to sell right before the news.
Not always. Buying Apple now might be a home run. Then again, if you used your strategy when the Cube was just over the horizon...
Its your money, and my crystal ball remains cloudy.
It is time to buy even more Apple stock.
The "competition" has geared up to sell glorified bathroom web-browswers. In 2010 Apple is going to show how its is done with a Tablet that redefines seamless ubiquitous computing. After that the competition will quietly discontinue their line of updated crapware and go back to the drawing board to figure out a better way to trick the consumer into thinking they are buying an Apple tablet for less money.
Wait for the inevitable drop at the end of this month, then load up for future growth. The Wal-Mart approach to Apps (good, better, best) and music and movies, and possibly books, magazine and newspaper subscriptions is going to propel Apple into uncharted territory.
Different markets.
Apple caters to the home consumers, that's their market and they fight hard against any competition in that area. Their products are designed with a high lust factor and invoke impulsive purchases and even theft. Some people even buy Apple's hardware with no real need for the device itself, rather just to buy a new toy.
MacBook Pros invoke impulse purchases? iMacs invoke impulse purchases? Isn't it just as probable that super cheap PCs sold at Walmart are being bought on impulse? Hey look, a PC with a printer and an LCD for $250, let's pick one up for the kid's room....
Also, "some people" buy PCs because they accidently confused them with toasters. What mythical "some people" do is not an argument for or against anything.
The iPods in their various forms and price points are high on the list of impulsive purchases. Many people bought them not even knowing it required a computer to use them. (reports are this holiday season iPods sold extremely well)
Yes, iPods can be impulse purchases. Also, "many people" bought Zunes who were under the impression that they were Xboxes. Again, fatuous claims about what non-specific "people" are doing are a very weak form of argumentation.
Apple cares less about the drab market, businesses like drab because it's serious and employees don't steal the hardware.
"Drab" and "serious" are not synonymous. In fact, "drab" and "poorly designed" are not synonymous, as the legions of blinky lighted, port bristling, racing striped PC hardware will attest. For that matter, Apple's laptops aren't particularly flashy, just solidly built. The old "Macs are about eye candy, PCs are about work" canard is entirely baseless, at this point, if it ever had merit. The real point of distinction is that Apple doesn't compete in the razor thin margin discount segment of the market. Look at Windows 7 and tell me that PCs are about grim productivity-- there's more bling in that OS than Apple ever dreamed of. In fact, nowadays you hear the PC crowd mocking Apple for being insufficiently flashy, claiming that OS X is "drab" and the iPhone OS is "dated" (compared to the bling heavy Zune HD).
Also, the idea that business buys less desirable hardware to prevent theft is an odd one. "Desirability" surely has some relationship to functionality, so to make sense you'd have to argue that businesses are obliged to equip their employees with shoddy, poor performing computers, to make sure they don't steal them. Unless you imagine that employees have no interested in stealing spartan looking hardware that works really well, which kind of gets to the heart of the matter.
Businesses look at computer and software purchases with a critical eye for the bottom line, getting the most value for their money, looks are not really important, except in their creative departments. Businesses are in business to make money, not spend it on a whim if a device changes color or gets a new feature like emotional appealing consumer would.
I think you're getting computers mixed up with iPods. The design of the desktop and laptop Macs has been remarkably stable for the last number of years-- probably more so than the average Dell, which has models coming and going like a cheap hotel. Again, the real difference between Macs and PCs isn't some mythical bling vs. button down, but the vast array of cheap commodity boxes available with Windows installed. Cheap is cheap, not somehow more hardworking or serious.
Apple changed their name from Apple Computer for a reason, they are planing on exiting the computer industry and focusing on being a consumer products company that makes devices people can easily use, not much anymore on real computers that require a lot of thought and a steep learning curve.
And as long as the people running the other computer companies think like you, Apple will have a pretty good time of it. If you can't distinguish between "ease of use" and "real computing", or good, integrated design from flashy (or that idea's obverse, that crummy design and cheap automatically equals "serious"), you're prey to a fundamental, limiting prejudice.
Utter crap, as per usual...
Why? He posted some very good points. Makes sense.
MacBook Pros invoke impulse purchases? iMacs invoke impulse purchases? Isn't it just as probable that super cheap PCs sold at Walmart are being bought on impulse? Hey look, a PC with a printer and an LCD for $250, let's pick one up for the kid's room....
Also, "some people" buy PCs because they accidently confused them with toasters. What mythical "some people" do is not an argument for or against anything.
Yes, iPods can be impulse purchases. Also, "many people" bought Zunes who were under the impression that they were Xboxes. Again, fatuous claims about what non-specific "people" are doing are a very weak form of argumentation.
"Drab" and "serious" are not synonymous. In fact, "drab" and "poorly designed" are not synonymous, as the legions of blinky lighted, port bristling, racing striped PC hardware will attest. For that matter, Apple's laptops aren't particularly flashy, just solidly built. The old "Macs are about eye candy, PCs are about work" canard is entirely baseless, at this point, if it ever had merit. The real point of distinction is that Apple doesn't compete in the razor thin margin discount segment of the market. Look at Windows 7 and tell me that PCs are about grim productivity-- there's more bling in that OS than Apple ever dreamed of. In fact, nowadays you hear the PC crowd mocking Apple for being insufficiently flashy, claiming that OS X is "drab" and the iPhone OS is "dated" (compared to the bling heavy Zune HD).
I think you're getting computers mixed up with iPods. The design of the desktop and laptop Macs has been remarkably stable for the last number of years-- probably more so than the average Dell, which has models coming and going like a cheap hotel. Again, the real difference between Macs and PCs isn't some mythical bling vs. button down, but the vast array of cheap commodity boxes available with Windows installed. Cheap is cheap, not somehow more hardworking or serious.
And as long as the people running the other computer companies think like you, Apple will have a pretty good time of it. If you can't distinguish between "ease of use" and "real computing", or good, integrated design from flashy, you're prey to a fundamental, limiting prejudice.
Sounds more like a emotional rant that a argument, what are your points?
Your points are all correct. But the points address a different topic.
Apple has done very well with its low-volume high-profit strategy. They are like Bang & Olufsen, making beautiful tech-forward products that work well enough, with premium prices (if one considers bang/buck), which sell to a small, but enthusiastic and satisfied market.
Your point misses my main point.
Which personal computer manufacturer makes the most revenue in the US?
I think it is Apple (even when we remove iPhone and iPod revenues)
That is not niche. It's freaking huge!
C.
Generally, it is a good idea to buy low, rather than after a stock has quickly doubled. Generally, it is a good idea to buy on early rumors, and if the stock has performed, to sell right before the news.
Not always. Buying Apple now might be a home run. Then again, if you used your strategy when the Cube was just over the horizon...
Its your money, and my crystal ball remains cloudy.
It's more than cloudy, I'd call it broken. For someone who invested 12 years ago, AAPL has returned over 4,000%. When during those 12 years would it have been "generally" not a good idea to buy, or "generally" a good time to sell? The first time it quickly doubled? The second? The third? The fourth?
That's the problem with rules of thumb. They have to cope with the real world, which doesn't behave itself according to rules of thumb.
I never give advice on when to buy and sell stocks. But if you're going to invest in individual stocks, buy companies you have reason to expect will grow, not according to some arbitrary rule. And don't try to time the market. Even the pros can't do that consistently.
Also, FWIW, Apple did pay a dividend to stockholders, a very small one, until the mid-1990s.
The Notion device has some compelling tech but that won’t make it a good product if the UI and UX are subpar. So far I’ve seen no tablet that makes me say, “I want/need that!”.
I’ve been saying for awhile now this is the year of the tablet and media extender. So far I appear to be half right.