None of this changes the fact that macs NEED to have a lower point of entry. Their overall market as a PERCENTAGE of the total PC market MUST grow for them to live in the same form as the company they are now.
Yes, Mac users spend more money on software and pirate less. They do more work per capita. This is good if you sell mac software, but Apple makes just as much money from a mac sale whether you use your mac to map the latest gene sequence or whether you use it as a door stop. Still, there are some valid points here about the nature of the mac market.
But, if market share continues to shrink, you can expect an amplification of these trends. I DO NOT THINK THAT APPLE WILL DIE IF MARKET SHARE DECREASES. But the company will change into an ever more exclusively high-end company. It will offer high-end 1st party software and hardware solutions because they turn a high profit and pros running studios have less incentive to be 'windows compatible.' Even the third party software will be higher-end stuff. As the percentage shrinks (as a part of the total PC market) it just gets harder to cover all the bases. People buying macs are not averse to spending money or working on a 'non-standard' platform (I know, big myth, but it's what people believe) So it only makes sense to retarget in that direction.
As the market share gets smaller, macs will get pricier (and current trends aside) probably MUCH faster and less 'standard'. Apple may find itself with pro solutions that are so good and in so much demand that it can sell just as many boxes as it does today but at a much higher price and specification. That's great for Apple, but it means that consumers will eventually get cut out of the mac landscape. And that does me no good as a user/potential user.
This worry is mostly, but not entirely, myth. That's why Apple is targetting their ad campaign the way they are: "I switched and I can do everything I did before, only better."
<snip>
The biggest tactical error I can see is adopting Sun's Java as a core technology. Not for technological reasons, but for political reasons: If Apple is moving into the server space, they're a direct competitor to Sun, who might retaliate. Sun have monopolistic tendencies of their own, and they've done a number of sleazy things with Java that make me wonder what their long term plans are for the platform, such as convincing ANSI to ratify Java as a standard without requiring Sun to relinquish control over the platform's specification to ANSI - a unique and frightening precedent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When I converted to the Mac a few months ago, I was also concerned that I won't be able to communicate. The availability of MS Word/Excel for the Mac was important. There is of course the PC emulator, which lets me run those apps without which I can't function.
I found that there are still many rough edges; for one, using the MS provided IE (which is pretty good) on the Mac does not get me the compatibility I need when I conduct business on the web. The sites I need to visit seem to cater to the Windows version of IE and I am forced to keep a PC next to my Mac when I need to interact with these sites. I know this is not an Apple fault, but it might be feasable to take one of the open source browsers and do what ever it took to make it compatible with IE sites. (Example: I trade stocks using a number of web sites and services. None of them is compatible with my Mac. )
As to the Sun angle I can only confirm that Apple is threading on Sun grounds. I am part of a software development group looking to upgrade hardware and we are seriously looking at Apple (OS X) instead of Sun. This is the case because of the budget constraints we have to deal with. It is no longer acceptable to get the latest Sun offering just because we ran Sun boxes in the past.
The Power Mac line looks good to us as is, but we'll be more likely to jump in when OS X Jaguar is released with updated Unix support.
Isn't it funny that the Forte (Java ONE) environment is not available directly from Sun even though it is capable of running on OS X? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>None of this changes the fact that macs NEED to have a lower point of entry. Their overall market as a PERCENTAGE of the total PC market MUST grow for them to live in the same form as the company they are now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't accept the assumption that the second sentence is contingent on the first. To really address the el cheapo market, Apple would have to make some decisions that profoundly affect its entire strategy (I'm not talking profit here) - and they'd still end up more expensive than the white box makers and the hobbyists.
People who want a Honda for the price of a Kia buy a used Honda. That's pretty much the only way Apple can compete with the Kias of the computer world - indirectly, via the used market. There's no way for them to compete with computer fairs, where you can pick up the parts for a computer for $50-$100 all told. Dell, for all their ruthless efficiency, couldn't even come close.
[quote]<strong>Yes, Mac users spend more money on software and pirate less. They do more work per capita. This is good if you sell mac software, but Apple makes just as much money from a mac sale whether you use your mac to map the latest gene sequence or whether you use it as a door stop. Still, there are some valid points here about the nature of the mac market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I remember reading an essay offered as part of a business course that defined a viable, self-sustaining market at 50 million seats. This is a fixed number, independent of the product or the size of the market. If there is truth to this (and it does make sense) then Apple needs to pick up another 20 million users or so. Anything after that is gravy.
There are also different relevant subsections of the Mac market: The market for graphics and press work is outsized relative to the total market share, while the market for games is small relative to the total. On the other side, the PCs sold as corporate desktop clients does not significantly impact the size of the consumer software market (especially where things like games are concerned), so their significant contribution to Windows' overall market share is irrelevant to that market.
[quote]
[Apple goes high end]
<strong>People buying macs are not averse to spending money or working on a 'non-standard' platform (I know, big myth, but it's what people believe) So it only makes sense to retarget in that direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or, it makes sense to attack the myth. It's actually very simple: I've convinced a number of people of Apple's compatibility just by pointing out that when you have a 5% market share you have no choice. The smaller their share gets, the more convincing that argument is. It's no accident that Macs play much better with others than they did in the early '90s.
[quote]<strong>As the market share gets smaller, macs will get pricier (and current trends aside) probably MUCH faster and less 'standard'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see this logic. Cost is determined by the absolute number of units produced, not by the percentage of the overall market that the number of units represents. If Apple's market doubles tomorrow, and the PC market triples tomorrow, Apple's costs will go down due to economies of scale. In fact, the larger PC market will help drive Apple's costs down, because they use many of the same components.
Compatibility as a political consideration increases as market share decreases; technologically, it's orthogonal to market share. It doesn't take that many people or that much money to reverse engineer file formats et al, especially since Apple is leaning on the open source community for much of its compatibility now, and since all Apple has to be concerned with are document formats and networking protocols, which are (relatively) simple. Apple also has the assistance of third parties here - and if they're here now, they'll be here when Apple's market grows, because they're selling to the current market and profiting, so they wouldn't balk at selling into a bigger one - even if it's a smaller piece of the overall pie.
[quote]<strong>Apple may find itself with pro solutions that are so good and in so much demand that it can sell just as many boxes as it does today but at a much higher price and specification. That's great for Apple, but it means that consumers will eventually get cut out of the mac landscape. And that does me no good as a user/potential user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering that Apple's prices have plunged from their old levels, and that Steve has retired the TCO argument as ineffective, I doubt Apple's pricing will trend upward if there's any way they can help it. So far, they've been pretty good at finding ways to keep prices down, with a handful of exceptions.
The arguments seem to boil down to wanting a less expensive Mac for the masses (to gain marketshare) vs. the idea that Apple will take a financial bath on such products, and become a victim of the economic circumstances and go out of business like so many, many, many PC companies.
And there's a model that can do the formar and prevent the latter.
Several years ago HP wanted to explore the low cost printer segment without diluting the HP brand. The answer was the <a href="http://www.myapollo.com"; target="_blank">Apollo line of printers</a>
There's no reason Apple couldn't camouflage the eMac and use the Power Computing brand, make a gazillion of them and ship them exclusively to Walmart and Costco.
Would they make money on these? No, but that's not the idea. It would give them a weapon to garner both Market-and-Mind share. All the Power Computing "clone" division would need to do is break even.
And MacHeads like me would still be saving up for a "real" Power Mac G5.
This thread's been hijacked so many times I don't know where to begin...
Who said Apple should compete with computer fairs? Compaq/HP, Dell, and Gateway sure as hell can't. The kind of people that will put together their own computer from cheap/used parts aren't Apple's target demo. Apple doesn't want their business and would be stupid to cater to them.
Socialism?!?!?
$699 seems like the cheapest Apple could make any computer that still has Apple quality. (and even then we're talking old G3, old video, lil ram, small drive). I know this. I suggested $899 for the eMac to make it "well under $1000" in marekting parlance. My guess is the large school districts that optioned in early on the eMac got $900 favorable pricing as an enticement to accounce the high profile purchases.
I support the Apple store concept, however I miss the days when I could buy a Mac at Best Buy or Sears. Apple has become LESS ubiquitous than they once were. I believe half of their battle is putting macs back in people's faces once they have a sub $1000 machine.
I agree with the obvious assessment that apple lost the marketshare war along time ago. I just think 15% is achievable and more importantly SUSTAINABLE. It's just gonna mean some changes.
It?s taken me a couple of days to read this thread and I?ve enjoyed the reading. I have noticed that I does seem to perpetuate many myths about Windows/PC users of which I am one. The disinformation factory seems to be alive and well in both camps. The most dangerous thing Apple could do is to start believing the its own myths about PC users.
1. PC users are not doorknob stupid when it comes to using computers. We are not all clueless and confused when it comes to getting the most out of out PCs. The ones who can?t figure out basic operation of their PC will not fair any better on a Mac. They never even try to read manuals or troubleshoot their problem. They just sit there stupidly waiting for the computer to scramble some eggs for them. If that?s who Apple is after, they can have them. These are the same people who can?t figure out how to set the time on their VCRs
2. Price is not the most important factor. It is only one small part of the mix. For extreme budget shoppers, price is key. But most PC users are not extreme budget shoppers. I wouldn?t even consider a sub zero PC. Not because they?re bad, but because they don?t suite my needs. PC users are not cheap. We just expect value for our dollar. $3000.00 for a headless system is a bit much. But we will even pay that if we believe we are getting a good value. We don?t avoid Macs because they are too expensive. They are not. We avoid Macs because they are too expensive for what you get. It is perceived value, not price that is the problem.
3. PC users are not ignorant about Macs. It is not that we don?t know about Apple and its products. It is that we just don?t like what we see. Mac evangelists seem to think that if they can only get the word out about their product, then the other 95 will flock to them. UNTRUE! We are no more misinformed about Macs than Mac users are misinformed about PCs. Some of us are as disgusted with Apple?s policies, business practices, and CEO as many of you are with Microsoft. There is a lot not to like about Apple. Apple fanatics have a few blind spots when it comes to their platform of choice. Don?t assume there is something wrong with me because I don?t see Apple the same way you do.
4. We do not see computing platforms as either/or. The worst thing Apple can do is to is to become like the regions who claim that theirs is the only true church and all others are lost. That message doesn?t resonate in religion and it doesn?t resonate for tech buyers either. If Apple can?t coexist in the big happy family of technology that people own, then we don?t want it in the family. I don?t want a handheld that won?t talk to my computer. I don?t want a toaster that won?t plug in to my power outlets. I don?t want a TV that won?t work with my VCR. If TIVO didn?t work with my cable, I would get rid of TIVO not cable. Apple would get more traction by encouraging us PC users to add a Mac to our digital lifestyles for the things Macs are good for. Rather than tell use to replace our PCs with Macs and choose sides.
5. PC users are just as creative and productive on their PCs as Mac users. The idea that you need a Mac to edit video, make music, write poetry, or run a business is completely absurd! PC users are both creative and productive. We just happen to also be able to play the latest games when we feel like unwinding. Fall for that myth at you own peril.
Many of the previous post seem to reflect the general acceptance of certain myths about PC users. Don?t fall prey to the nonsense spouted by either side about the other. Often times, the only difference in a Mac user versus a PC user is the platform they used in school or the family they were born into. We are more alike than different. It is corporate entities that divide us for the purpose of making money, not genetics. There is nothing fundamentally different about us any more so that there is with, say, Methodists and Baptists.
We all want to do something creative or productive or fun with our computers. We all want the most bang for our buck. And we all want to see the state of the computing art advance regardless of what company makes the breakthrough.
OK, enough of this love fest. Now back to the backstabbing and name calling. Just try not to fall to hard for the self delusional myths we create about each other.
[quote]As I read the reference I am now convinced that this guy was a socialist. A union and _collective_ bargaining is the last resort of people who have very little to offer besides physical labor which is usually in over supply. Unfortunately, the only reason the unions exist is the government meddling in the free market.<hr></blockquote>Ignorant little child--no politics my ass--impose your belief system and cut of the debate. Try to learn about the history of labour and labour unions. You can start here:
<strong>In my experience, the #1 worry of most people who could be Mac users is that they'll be stuck in a little island, and they won't be able to do all the things they're used to doing, or communicate with other Windows users in the ways they're accustomed to. So they put up with the devil they know.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I've seen, I tend to fully agree with this. Most people that I know who switched to Mac, did so because they had someone like myself to demonstrate that they could do what they want to do on a Mac - only better!
[quote]<strong>The biggest tactical error I can see is adopting Sun's Java as a core technology. Not for technological reasons, but for political reasons: If Apple is moving into the server space, they're a direct competitor to Sun, who might retaliate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree for two reasons.
First, Java is more popular in server development than in the client side development. Likewise, if Apple wants to go for the server arena, it needs Java.
Second, Sun is much more concerned about MS than any other competitor, especially Apple. In fact, Sun has been rather "chummy" with Apple lately. MS is pushing it's .NET strategy. I would guarantee Sun would rather lose some server business to Apple and have Java remain the standard, then lose to MS's .NET.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>None of this changes the fact that macs NEED to have a lower point of entry. Their overall market as a PERCENTAGE of the total PC market MUST grow for them to live in the same form as the company they are now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Matsu, I agree that it would be nice to have a low price point entry level Mac system. However, I also believe that it's a myth to assume "cheaper Macs" = "more Macs sold". How many people do you think will buy a Mac because it is almost as cheap as a cheap PC? The Mac is a niche market. Selling cheaper Macs will only mean lower profit margins for Apple. This has already been proven with the clone market. I bought a clone because it was cheaper back in '97. The clone market did not increase the Mac platform's marketshare and it nearly put Apple out of business in the process.
I don't want to see a very stripped down Mac that appeases a few price conscious Mac folks. I like the fact that Apple is a quality brand that ships with more than the bare minimum feature set. Apple also has a brand reputation to uphold you know.
Well, congratulations everyone on the best informed, and least vituperative thread on these boards in ages. Does your heart good.
My only query in relation to a low-end, share grabbing CRT Mac, is how this will affect future profitability in terms of recyclability. Here in the EU, we have pending legislation
(<a href="http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/00/602|0|RAPID&lg=EN" target="_blank">WEEE</a>) to push the cost of recyling back to the producer. This must be a major factor in driving LCD products, since CRT's have a much higher recycling cost. Any product introduced now, with a four year life, will affected by this. Does the US have similar plans in the offing?
It drives me batty to here people saying market share doesn't matter, MHz doesn't matter, etc.
When the Market share of Apple most profitable segments and most important user base decreases, that matters a lot.
The loss's in market share in schools and in the graphics realm matters(.)!
These are the areas where Apple traditionally has the majority of the market. These are also the market that Apple realies on when times are hard.
As far as MHz mattering..... It of course matters!! Harking on the Boards about how Apple has enough MHz for me and no one really even uses what their cpu's can do yadda, yadda, yadda, most likely LOVED the snail commercials and the smoking bunny suits a little while back. I did!
Personally I could use all the MHz any desk top has. I would love it! And no I don't work on 3D right now. I just want my .psd and my .eps file to save as quick as possible. I want my screen to always refresh when I move images around. I want everything to be snappy. etc, etc.
And cost matters as well. The small business that I work at just recently purchased all Dells. Why? Inexpensive and the company was already a PC company. Dells, while we all like to beat our drums and talk S--- are the solution for many companies.
I've worked with the Dells using XP since XP came out and it works. If I were a P.C. user I would never think of spending a premium on a Mac to switch over. Too expensive and change is hard etc, etc.
-The Macs need to up their performance and be in the lead pack.
-Apple needs to keep and improve their quality and design constantly and they need to drop prices to go head to head.
Apple has a ton of great things going for it and it has a fantastic board of directors, CEO, talented engineers and managers.
Once 10.2 is out I think the Apple can make huge inroads, but please don't gloss over weak area's of the Apple eco system like they don't matter, because not only do they matter they are in fact critical.
-tink
________________________
Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain.
Comments
Yes, Mac users spend more money on software and pirate less. They do more work per capita. This is good if you sell mac software, but Apple makes just as much money from a mac sale whether you use your mac to map the latest gene sequence or whether you use it as a door stop. Still, there are some valid points here about the nature of the mac market.
But, if market share continues to shrink, you can expect an amplification of these trends. I DO NOT THINK THAT APPLE WILL DIE IF MARKET SHARE DECREASES. But the company will change into an ever more exclusively high-end company. It will offer high-end 1st party software and hardware solutions because they turn a high profit and pros running studios have less incentive to be 'windows compatible.' Even the third party software will be higher-end stuff. As the percentage shrinks (as a part of the total PC market) it just gets harder to cover all the bases. People buying macs are not averse to spending money or working on a 'non-standard' platform (I know, big myth, but it's what people believe) So it only makes sense to retarget in that direction.
As the market share gets smaller, macs will get pricier (and current trends aside) probably MUCH faster and less 'standard'. Apple may find itself with pro solutions that are so good and in so much demand that it can sell just as many boxes as it does today but at a much higher price and specification. That's great for Apple, but it means that consumers will eventually get cut out of the mac landscape. And that does me no good as a user/potential user.
<strong><snip>
This worry is mostly, but not entirely, myth. That's why Apple is targetting their ad campaign the way they are: "I switched and I can do everything I did before, only better."
<snip>
The biggest tactical error I can see is adopting Sun's Java as a core technology. Not for technological reasons, but for political reasons: If Apple is moving into the server space, they're a direct competitor to Sun, who might retaliate. Sun have monopolistic tendencies of their own, and they've done a number of sleazy things with Java that make me wonder what their long term plans are for the platform, such as convincing ANSI to ratify Java as a standard without requiring Sun to relinquish control over the platform's specification to ANSI - a unique and frightening precedent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When I converted to the Mac a few months ago, I was also concerned that I won't be able to communicate. The availability of MS Word/Excel for the Mac was important. There is of course the PC emulator, which lets me run those apps without which I can't function.
I found that there are still many rough edges; for one, using the MS provided IE (which is pretty good) on the Mac does not get me the compatibility I need when I conduct business on the web. The sites I need to visit seem to cater to the Windows version of IE and I am forced to keep a PC next to my Mac when I need to interact with these sites. I know this is not an Apple fault, but it might be feasable to take one of the open source browsers and do what ever it took to make it compatible with IE sites. (Example: I trade stocks using a number of web sites and services. None of them is compatible with my Mac.
As to the Sun angle I can only confirm that Apple is threading on Sun grounds. I am part of a software development group looking to upgrade hardware and we are seriously looking at Apple (OS X) instead of Sun. This is the case because of the budget constraints we have to deal with. It is no longer acceptable to get the latest Sun offering just because we ran Sun boxes in the past.
The Power Mac line looks good to us as is, but we'll be more likely to jump in when OS X Jaguar is released with updated Unix support.
Isn't it funny that the Forte (Java ONE) environment is not available directly from Sun even though it is capable of running on OS X? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>None of this changes the fact that macs NEED to have a lower point of entry. Their overall market as a PERCENTAGE of the total PC market MUST grow for them to live in the same form as the company they are now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't accept the assumption that the second sentence is contingent on the first. To really address the el cheapo market, Apple would have to make some decisions that profoundly affect its entire strategy (I'm not talking profit here) - and they'd still end up more expensive than the white box makers and the hobbyists.
People who want a Honda for the price of a Kia buy a used Honda. That's pretty much the only way Apple can compete with the Kias of the computer world - indirectly, via the used market. There's no way for them to compete with computer fairs, where you can pick up the parts for a computer for $50-$100 all told. Dell, for all their ruthless efficiency, couldn't even come close.
[quote]<strong>Yes, Mac users spend more money on software and pirate less. They do more work per capita. This is good if you sell mac software, but Apple makes just as much money from a mac sale whether you use your mac to map the latest gene sequence or whether you use it as a door stop. Still, there are some valid points here about the nature of the mac market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I remember reading an essay offered as part of a business course that defined a viable, self-sustaining market at 50 million seats. This is a fixed number, independent of the product or the size of the market. If there is truth to this (and it does make sense) then Apple needs to pick up another 20 million users or so. Anything after that is gravy.
There are also different relevant subsections of the Mac market: The market for graphics and press work is outsized relative to the total market share, while the market for games is small relative to the total. On the other side, the PCs sold as corporate desktop clients does not significantly impact the size of the consumer software market (especially where things like games are concerned), so their significant contribution to Windows' overall market share is irrelevant to that market.
[quote]
[Apple goes high end]
<strong>People buying macs are not averse to spending money or working on a 'non-standard' platform (I know, big myth, but it's what people believe) So it only makes sense to retarget in that direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or, it makes sense to attack the myth. It's actually very simple: I've convinced a number of people of Apple's compatibility just by pointing out that when you have a 5% market share you have no choice.
[quote]<strong>As the market share gets smaller, macs will get pricier (and current trends aside) probably MUCH faster and less 'standard'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see this logic. Cost is determined by the absolute number of units produced, not by the percentage of the overall market that the number of units represents. If Apple's market doubles tomorrow, and the PC market triples tomorrow, Apple's costs will go down due to economies of scale. In fact, the larger PC market will help drive Apple's costs down, because they use many of the same components.
Compatibility as a political consideration increases as market share decreases; technologically, it's orthogonal to market share. It doesn't take that many people or that much money to reverse engineer file formats et al, especially since Apple is leaning on the open source community for much of its compatibility now, and since all Apple has to be concerned with are document formats and networking protocols, which are (relatively) simple. Apple also has the assistance of third parties here - and if they're here now, they'll be here when Apple's market grows, because they're selling to the current market and profiting, so they wouldn't balk at selling into a bigger one - even if it's a smaller piece of the overall pie.
[quote]<strong>Apple may find itself with pro solutions that are so good and in so much demand that it can sell just as many boxes as it does today but at a much higher price and specification. That's great for Apple, but it means that consumers will eventually get cut out of the mac landscape. And that does me no good as a user/potential user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering that Apple's prices have plunged from their old levels, and that Steve has retired the TCO argument as ineffective, I doubt Apple's pricing will trend upward if there's any way they can help it. So far, they've been pretty good at finding ways to keep prices down, with a handful of exceptions.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
And there's a model that can do the formar and prevent the latter.
Several years ago HP wanted to explore the low cost printer segment without diluting the HP brand. The answer was the <a href="http://www.myapollo.com"; target="_blank">Apollo line of printers</a>
There's no reason Apple couldn't camouflage the eMac and use the Power Computing brand, make a gazillion of them and ship them exclusively to Walmart and Costco.
Would they make money on these? No, but that's not the idea. It would give them a weapon to garner both Market-and-Mind share. All the Power Computing "clone" division would need to do is break even.
And MacHeads like me would still be saving up for a "real" Power Mac G5.
Who said Apple should compete with computer fairs? Compaq/HP, Dell, and Gateway sure as hell can't. The kind of people that will put together their own computer from cheap/used parts aren't Apple's target demo. Apple doesn't want their business and would be stupid to cater to them.
Socialism?!?!?
$699 seems like the cheapest Apple could make any computer that still has Apple quality. (and even then we're talking old G3, old video, lil ram, small drive). I know this. I suggested $899 for the eMac to make it "well under $1000" in marekting parlance. My guess is the large school districts that optioned in early on the eMac got $900 favorable pricing as an enticement to accounce the high profile purchases.
I support the Apple store concept, however I miss the days when I could buy a Mac at Best Buy or Sears. Apple has become LESS ubiquitous than they once were. I believe half of their battle is putting macs back in people's faces once they have a sub $1000 machine.
I agree with the obvious assessment that apple lost the marketshare war along time ago. I just think 15% is achievable and more importantly SUSTAINABLE. It's just gonna mean some changes.
1. PC users are not doorknob stupid when it comes to using computers. We are not all clueless and confused when it comes to getting the most out of out PCs. The ones who can?t figure out basic operation of their PC will not fair any better on a Mac. They never even try to read manuals or troubleshoot their problem. They just sit there stupidly waiting for the computer to scramble some eggs for them. If that?s who Apple is after, they can have them. These are the same people who can?t figure out how to set the time on their VCRs
2. Price is not the most important factor. It is only one small part of the mix. For extreme budget shoppers, price is key. But most PC users are not extreme budget shoppers. I wouldn?t even consider a sub zero PC. Not because they?re bad, but because they don?t suite my needs. PC users are not cheap. We just expect value for our dollar. $3000.00 for a headless system is a bit much. But we will even pay that if we believe we are getting a good value. We don?t avoid Macs because they are too expensive. They are not. We avoid Macs because they are too expensive for what you get. It is perceived value, not price that is the problem.
3. PC users are not ignorant about Macs. It is not that we don?t know about Apple and its products. It is that we just don?t like what we see. Mac evangelists seem to think that if they can only get the word out about their product, then the other 95 will flock to them. UNTRUE! We are no more misinformed about Macs than Mac users are misinformed about PCs. Some of us are as disgusted with Apple?s policies, business practices, and CEO as many of you are with Microsoft. There is a lot not to like about Apple. Apple fanatics have a few blind spots when it comes to their platform of choice. Don?t assume there is something wrong with me because I don?t see Apple the same way you do.
4. We do not see computing platforms as either/or. The worst thing Apple can do is to is to become like the regions who claim that theirs is the only true church and all others are lost. That message doesn?t resonate in religion and it doesn?t resonate for tech buyers either. If Apple can?t coexist in the big happy family of technology that people own, then we don?t want it in the family. I don?t want a handheld that won?t talk to my computer. I don?t want a toaster that won?t plug in to my power outlets. I don?t want a TV that won?t work with my VCR. If TIVO didn?t work with my cable, I would get rid of TIVO not cable. Apple would get more traction by encouraging us PC users to add a Mac to our digital lifestyles for the things Macs are good for. Rather than tell use to replace our PCs with Macs and choose sides.
5. PC users are just as creative and productive on their PCs as Mac users. The idea that you need a Mac to edit video, make music, write poetry, or run a business is completely absurd! PC users are both creative and productive. We just happen to also be able to play the latest games when we feel like unwinding. Fall for that myth at you own peril.
Many of the previous post seem to reflect the general acceptance of certain myths about PC users. Don?t fall prey to the nonsense spouted by either side about the other. Often times, the only difference in a Mac user versus a PC user is the platform they used in school or the family they were born into. We are more alike than different. It is corporate entities that divide us for the purpose of making money, not genetics. There is nothing fundamentally different about us any more so that there is with, say, Methodists and Baptists.
We all want to do something creative or productive or fun with our computers. We all want the most bang for our buck. And we all want to see the state of the computing art advance regardless of what company makes the breakthrough.
OK, enough of this love fest. Now back to the backstabbing and name calling. Just try not to fall to hard for the self delusional myths we create about each other.
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/MACvsPCCombined.pdf"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/MACvsPCCombined.pdf</a>;
Other cool links on Mac vs PC:
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/Intro.html"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/Intro.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/mac/Death-of-a-Thousand-Stings.html"; target="_blank">http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/mac/Death-of-a-Thousand-Stings.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/mac/Mac.html"; target="_blank">http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/mac/Mac.html</a>;
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<a href="http://http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/narrative1.html" target="_blank">http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/narrative1.html</a>
Better yet ask one of your grandparents--if they did any factory--what it was like.
<strong>In my experience, the #1 worry of most people who could be Mac users is that they'll be stuck in a little island, and they won't be able to do all the things they're used to doing, or communicate with other Windows users in the ways they're accustomed to. So they put up with the devil they know.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I've seen, I tend to fully agree with this. Most people that I know who switched to Mac, did so because they had someone like myself to demonstrate that they could do what they want to do on a Mac - only better!
[quote]<strong>The biggest tactical error I can see is adopting Sun's Java as a core technology. Not for technological reasons, but for political reasons: If Apple is moving into the server space, they're a direct competitor to Sun, who might retaliate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree for two reasons.
First, Java is more popular in server development than in the client side development. Likewise, if Apple wants to go for the server arena, it needs Java.
Second, Sun is much more concerned about MS than any other competitor, especially Apple. In fact, Sun has been rather "chummy" with Apple lately. MS is pushing it's .NET strategy. I would guarantee Sun would rather lose some server business to Apple and have Java remain the standard, then lose to MS's .NET.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>None of this changes the fact that macs NEED to have a lower point of entry. Their overall market as a PERCENTAGE of the total PC market MUST grow for them to live in the same form as the company they are now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Matsu, I agree that it would be nice to have a low price point entry level Mac system. However, I also believe that it's a myth to assume "cheaper Macs" = "more Macs sold". How many people do you think will buy a Mac because it is almost as cheap as a cheap PC? The Mac is a niche market. Selling cheaper Macs will only mean lower profit margins for Apple. This has already been proven with the clone market. I bought a clone because it was cheaper back in '97. The clone market did not increase the Mac platform's marketshare and it nearly put Apple out of business in the process.
I don't want to see a very stripped down Mac that appeases a few price conscious Mac folks. I like the fact that Apple is a quality brand that ships with more than the bare minimum feature set. Apple also has a brand reputation to uphold you know.
Steve
My only query in relation to a low-end, share grabbing CRT Mac, is how this will affect future profitability in terms of recyclability. Here in the EU, we have pending legislation
(<a href="http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/00/602|0|RAPID&lg=EN" target="_blank">WEEE</a>) to push the cost of recyling back to the producer. This must be a major factor in driving LCD products, since CRT's have a much higher recycling cost. Any product introduced now, with a four year life, will affected by this. Does the US have similar plans in the offing?
[ 06-18-2002: Message edited by: Jellytussle ]</p>
When the Market share of Apple most profitable segments and most important user base decreases, that matters a lot.
The loss's in market share in schools and in the graphics realm matters(.)!
These are the areas where Apple traditionally has the majority of the market. These are also the market that Apple realies on when times are hard.
As far as MHz mattering..... It of course matters!! Harking on the Boards about how Apple has enough MHz for me and no one really even uses what their cpu's can do yadda, yadda, yadda, most likely LOVED the snail commercials and the smoking bunny suits a little while back. I did!
Personally I could use all the MHz any desk top has. I would love it! And no I don't work on 3D right now. I just want my .psd and my .eps file to save as quick as possible. I want my screen to always refresh when I move images around. I want everything to be snappy. etc, etc.
And cost matters as well. The small business that I work at just recently purchased all Dells. Why? Inexpensive and the company was already a PC company. Dells, while we all like to beat our drums and talk S--- are the solution for many companies.
I've worked with the Dells using XP since XP came out and it works. If I were a P.C. user I would never think of spending a premium on a Mac to switch over. Too expensive and change is hard etc, etc.
-The Macs need to up their performance and be in the lead pack.
-Apple needs to keep and improve their quality and design constantly and they need to drop prices to go head to head.
Apple has a ton of great things going for it and it has a fantastic board of directors, CEO, talented engineers and managers.
Once 10.2 is out I think the Apple can make huge inroads, but please don't gloss over weak area's of the Apple eco system like they don't matter, because not only do they matter they are in fact critical.
-tink
________________________
Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain.
--Lilly Tomlin
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 06-18-2002: Message edited by: tink ]
[ 06-18-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</p>