Were will apple be one year from now?

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 26
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    The only similarity between the cube and the ipod is that they are both overpriced (relative to the market, not the technology). The ipod is mac only for a reason. It's to add value to the mac. "What can you do with your Mac?" It's time we had an answer the PC'ers don't have. It's to drive mac sales. They are not to make money, per se.



    Would the cube have done better if it ran Windows? No. So why would the ipod do better if it worked with Windows? If it's too expensive, it's too expensive. If it's not, then it'll be just like Macs which are doing ok. Time for a new argument against the ipod.



    Where will apple be in a year? There are lots of things waiting in the wings (I hope). I'm thinking that the next year will be an exciting one for Apple. Think about it: there have been no significant changes in the desktop line for a year. As for what is coming, I've got no idea. New iMacs, g5's, new ipod-like products. No colors or curves.
  • Reply 22 of 26
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>Where will Apple be a year from now... let me suggest a very likely scenario.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    And let me deflate it.



    [quote]<strong>

    Many stock brokers (never very nice to Apple to begin with) are starting to pick up their Apple bashing sticks again. They already desire to do this and Apple is giving them plenty of reason because they are repeating past mistakes instead of learning from them. (That and it appears they just aren't moving any machines)

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Stock brokers are people who have nothing better to do than to bash Apple. Yeah. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    In reality, market analysts have the same problems with Apple that many Mac users do. Overreliance on trade shows to release new products and revisions, the Motorola connection, the lack of a new iMac, and so on.

    That, combined with Apple's decline in revenue when compared to last year, has caused many analysts to be a bit iffy about APPL. However, a return to the days of yore when APPL was a target for snarky morons on CNBC are over, since analysts are more educated about technology now.



    And, if Apple isn't moving product, how the hell are they making a profit?



    [quote]<strong>

    This year the PC boys have been having an insane price war. As Christmas is barreling down on us they are tossing out insane deals just to keep the doors open. $999 is buying you Pentium 4's with 17 inch monitors and free printers thrown in. (not mom and pop, I'm talking Dell, IBM, and Gateway)

    <hr></blockquote></strong>



    And all of them are hemmoraging money. IBM is pulling out of the consumer desktop market. Gateway, Compaq, and HP are all dying. Dell is surviving only because of their strength in the corporate market. Make no mistake, the consumer PC market is Hell.



    So, your solution to Apple's nonexistant financial woes is for them to sell a loss-leader headless Mac and, in doing so, lose an enormous amount of money in order to gain a fraction of marketshare? Hmm...are you really Michael Dell? Such a strategy would hurt Apple a great deal. Apple is not a commodity PC maker, and they do not need to become one.



    Make no mistake, Apple plays in a niche market, that of content creation and playback. Their strategy is not to get out of the niche and turn into yet another cheap box builder, their strategy is to expand the niche. That's why most of their recent innovation has been in software; they're trying to expand the multimedia computing and content creator market by making it accessable to more people. I would be very willing to bet that the next iApp is going to be a music creation app, and that the next iGadget will be a 3.1Mpix digital camera with the same HDD as the iPod and a FW port.



    Apple exists in the same market as Sony, but Apple has one massive advantage: Their hardware and software are engineered to seamlessly integrate. Sony has been making a valiant effort to do that, but they're hampered by Windows.



    That being said, Sony had a Dick-Tracy style wrist communicator at COMDEX that was unbelievably awesome and cool and possibly better than toast.
  • Reply 23 of 26
    imacfpimacfp Posts: 750member
    [quote]Originally posted by Morte:

    <strong>[/qb]



    Apple exists in the same market as Sony, but Apple has one massive advantage: Their hardware and software are engineered to seamlessly integrate. Sony has been making a valiant effort to do that, but they're hampered by Windows. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Morte is quite right about how Apple views itself. The problem is Apple has only one main revenue stream--computers--where Sony has several. Apple does push software, but it is used more to support hardware sales. So, what the future will bring is more revenue streams e.g. the iPod.



    Chris



    [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: imacSE ]</p>
  • Reply 24 of 26
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>Many stock brokers (never very nice to Apple to begin with) are starting to pick up their Apple bashing sticks again. They already desire to do this and Apple is giving them plenty of reason because they are repeating past mistakes instead of learning from them. (That and it appears they just aren't moving any machines)

    </strong><hr></blockquote> Not moving machines? heh

    <strong> [quote]

    What do I mean? Everyone and their mother has been clamoring for an inexpensive Mac to which you can attach a darn monitor. Apple instead offered up the cube. The reaction was "cool, but.... (to expensive, not expandible, not clear about direction....etc...)People are tired of 15 inch iMacs and the premium for going above 15 inches is massive. (not even a cube in there now so you go straight to $1699 just to run a crappy 17 inch monitor)

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    Really? I haven't heard everyone and their mother clamoring for a inexpesive Mac that uses a monitor. Usually those people buy the $1699 model. If that is expensive then I don't know what to tell you. Compare the prices with the quality with similar companies like Dell and Gateway. Even though these companies don't really have much of a R&D cost they still cost about the same as Macs.

    <strong> [quote]

    This year the PC boys have been having an insane price war. As Christmas is barreling down on us they are tossing out insane deals just to keep the doors open. $999 is buying you Pentium 4's with 17 inch monitors and free printers thrown in. (not mom and pop, I'm talking Dell, IBM, and Gateway)

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    And most of those computers are rubbish. You know that.

    <strong> [quote]

    Meanwhile Apple is sitting their with their tower prices at $100 MORE than they were even a few years ago.(no excuse for this..there are no duel processors, nor even cutting edge tech to finance, Apple is just sitting on 30% margins)

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    You mean the CD-RW drive didn't up the price any? I am sure that is the factor.

    <strong> [quote]

    To counter this they offer.... the iPod. A very stylish and very expensive MP3 player that is Mac only. (shades of the cube all over again) What Apple needed to do was create the Nintendo game cube only Macified and sell it for $499 without a monitor.

    iPod while expensive.. isn't overpriced when you price the components that makes it up [qb][quote] I predict that Apple is going to have a bloodbath on their hands. In December they will have moved literally no machines and in January their stock is going to be beat into the ground for it. (I predict about $13-14) In January Apple will preannounce the G5 but the machines won't ship in any real volume until late March (hello a whole quarter later) After two dismal quarters the naysayers will be out in force again and the buzzards will be circling.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Ah another Apple is dieing prediction. Don't you just love these? There has been one every month since I can remember. But yet .. it never happens.

    <strong> [quote]

    Backs against the wall they finally decide to do an affordable non-iMac. Marketshare creeps back up to about 3.5% (down from the terrible high 2's I will predict for the December quarter) Apple is back in the black again, arrogance begins the slow return and we repeat......

    Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Apple has close to 6-8% mkt share in the US. 4-5% in the world as of right now. So somehow in a months time that is going to drop a percentage or two?



  • Reply 25 of 26
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,461member
    I'm using the quoting for the first time so I will try not to be confusing.



    [quote]In reality, market analysts have the same problems with Apple that many Mac users do. Overreliance on trade shows to release new products and revisions, the Motorola connection, the lack of a new iMac, and so on.

    That, combined with Apple's decline in revenue when compared to last year, has caused many analysts to be a bit iffy about APPL. However, a return to the days of yore when APPL was a target for snarky morons on CNBC are over, since analysts are more educated about technology now.



    And, if Apple isn't moving product, how the hell are they making a profit?

    <hr></blockquote>



    This would all be fine if the decline in revenues was related to cutting points out of the profit margin. When you see Dell reporting a lower profit it is because it has chosen to make less on each machine. In Apple's case, they hold fast to their 30% margin and so a decline in revenue for them is directly tied to selling fewer machines.



    As Apple themselves proves, you don't have to move a lot of machines to report a profit. I could boil a hotdog, stick it on a bun and charge you a buck. I would make a "profit" and I didn't have to move any sort of volume. Apple just has to make something on each machine. When I read Apple's own numbers last quarter, the report showed dismal powermac and iMac results. The only thing that saved their bacon at all was the iBook. (I know because I ordered 6 of them for my school and I use the 600) However one note does not a song make. They have not, nor are they going to do anything about the continued problems in their desktop lines. The buying season is over for schools and so that leaves......By Apple's own numbers they had 2.8 percent of the US market last quarter.



    [quote] And all of them are hemmoraging money. IBM is pulling out of the consumer desktop market. Gateway, Compaq, and HP are all dying. Dell is surviving only because of their strength in the corporate market. Make no mistake, the consumer PC market is Hell.



    So, your solution to Apple's nonexistant financial woes is for them to sell a loss-leader headless Mac and, in doing so, lose an enormous amount of money in order to gain a fraction of marketshare? Hmm...are you really Michael Dell? Such a strategy would hurt Apple a great deal. Apple is not a commodity PC maker, and they do not need to become one.

    <hr></blockquote>



    Apple is buffered more from the regular market gyrations because they are more like a luxury boutique item. This is true outside of computers as well. A BWM is not as sensitive to the market as say GM because luxury and the people that can afford it often can do so even in downtimes. This is not so true for joe average consumer. Note I believe that Apple is digging themselves into such a hole they will even work against this trend. Thus if average people obviously couldn't affort a BMW, and the rich decide it isn't worth it either, what would happen to BMW's prospects.



    Now you say Apple isn't a commodity pc maker. This is true and untrue. In Apple's case the sum truly is greater than the whole and Apple can charge more for that. However they no longer innovate in a manner that makes them unique with regard to hardware. The components that make up 80% of a modern Mac can be priced, purchased and compared with everything out there. Apple cannot simultaniously hope that the buying public is intelligent enough to understand that a [email protected] matches up with a Pentium [email protected] but then hope they are ignorant enough to ignore the 16 meg Rage 128 in their machine versus the typical Nvidia gf2mx solution in most lower end PC's. it cuts both ways.



    I am not suggesting Apple take a loss on any machine they sell. Rather I am saying that the market is asking for certain concessions and certain solutions and Apple refuses to address them to the detriment of growing market share and even to the point of shrinking their own marketshare. So in summary when you can't sell desktop Mac's to Mac users... then I believe things are looking bad.



    Apple doesn't have to sell it at a loss. They just have to allow you to put together a solution with a larger than a 15 inch monitor and a resonable price point. I mention Nintendo not to suggest Apple incure losses, but rather to show that if Apple can make a full iMac at $799 and Nintendo can make a cube for $199 (selling at a loss) then Apple should be able to make a headless iMac with some sort of small expansion (AGP only or perhaps 1 PCI slot) for something inbetween that. A $599 or $699 wouldn't kill Apple's profits, wouldn't have to be sold at a loss, and would grow marketshare.



    The best example of this is the iBook. There are cheaper PC solutions, but the Apple solution puts all the parts together and commands about a 20-25% premium over the PC solution (worth every cent too) Apple's refusal to fight in this area is costing them in my opinion. Especially in the area of marketshare and growth.



    Nick
  • Reply 26 of 26
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,461member
    [quote] Really? I haven't heard everyone and their mother clamoring for a inexpesive Mac that uses a monitor. Usually those people buy the $1699 model. If that is expensive then I don't know what to tell you. Compare the prices with the quality with similar companies like Dell and Gateway. Even though these companies don't really have much of a R&D cost they still cost about the same as Macs.

    <hr></blockquote>



    I have read and heard plenty of clamoring. There were tons of posts from people suggesting and wanting a G3 cube at $899 or so for the time. There a lots of posts on DV boards (one of Apple's core markets) asking about the size of the iMac screen and if there are any recourses for getting around it. Obviously there are those that buy the $1699 tower. Some find a way to be content with the iMac. Of course others just go buy a PC. Apple has stated their intention to get to 10% marketshare. Doing what you have always done will get you what you have always gotten. They need to think a little differently.



    Quote:

    And most of those computers are rubbish. You know that. <hr></blockquote>



    If taking a fast processor and sticking it with sdram, a lite-on 12xcd-r, a geforce2mx card, 5400 rpm drives, and built in sound is rubbish, then that is fine, but Apple's rubbish is running you $1699 then while the competition is running $999 with a 17 inch monitor.



    [QUOTEYou mean the CD-RW drive didn't up the price any? I am sure that is the factor.



    Perhaps in January, but hello this is November. It is obvious that the price of their components has dropped. Even the superdrive is already down under $500 retail. It is obvious that Apple is keeping the decreases and adding them to their margin (now over 30%) instead of passing them on to the consumer to remain competitive.



    [quote]Apple has close to 6-8% mkt share in the US. 4-5% in the world as of right now. So somehow in a months time that is going to drop a percentage or two? <hr></blockquote>



    By Apple's own numbers in their quarterly report their marketshare was 2.8%. Apple themselves only claim 5%. I would gladly concede that Mac's do a larger percentage of the important work than their marketshare would have you believe and also that the Mac market no matter what size is an active, involved and loyal bunch that desires Apple win and would even spend extra to insure this result. This however doesn't get them to 10%, in good times when the innovation rolls in again. (Kind of like the tides) it gets them back to 5%.
Sign In or Register to comment.