apple has spent the past 4 years pandering to the low end, grandpa joe consumer brigade and gotten nothing out of ... I say, lets have the dual and quad 970s with enough power technology to blow a crater 5 miles in radius around the cinema display
I agree with others that Apple has to address both ends. We 'know' the 970 is coming. I hope it will be fast enough to satisfy your craving. But what is happening at the other end? Steve?
I really don't see the possibility of a "low cast Mac" on the horizon. Nor would I necesarilly want to. Macintosh computers have always primarily appealed to a certain niche market and Apple has specifically designed the hardware and the software around that purpose in mind. Most computer users (and most prospective computer users) would simply never feel comfortable using a Mac, as they are not tailored to the lowest common denominator as Windows and Intel/etc. is.
I really don't see the possibility of a "low cast Mac" on the horizon. Nor would I necesarilly want to. Macintosh computers have always primarily appealed to a certain niche market and Apple has specifically designed the hardware and the software around that purpose in mind. Most computer users (and most prospective computer users) would simply never feel comfortable using a Mac, as they are not tailored to the lowest common denominator as Windows and Intel/etc. is.
Wow. Eliteist much? With the Macintosh, Apple has gone out of their way to design a computer/operating system/user interface that is simple and elegant to use. Most people who extol the virtues of the Mac OS state that "ease of use" is one of the most important features. You're saying that the reason the Mac has such low market share is because the OS doesn't pander to the "lowest common denominator?" Ridiculousness. "Most users" don't feel comfortable on a Mac because all they've ever known is Windows. Reverse the situation, and a longtime Mac user would feel just as uncomfortable on Windows.
The Mac has low market share because Apple has made some incredibly poor moves throughout its history that has kept its marketshare low (there have been entire books written on this). Had Apple played the game more like IBM/Microsoft, we might be railing against the Apple hegemony now while using the scrappy underdog Windows OS from that perennial loser, Microsoft.
The Mac has low market share because Apple has made some incredibly poor moves throughout its history that has kept its marketshare low (there have been entire books written on this). Had Apple played the game more like IBM/Microsoft, we might be railing against the Apple hegemony now while using the scrappy underdog Windows OS from that perennial loser, Microsoft.
Agreed. Smack talk about 'lowest common denom' and 'niche' isn't helpful. If Apple could have 95%, they would. Their stated goal from the top brass is growth. That's the only way they're going to move on from break-even to a much more profitable company.
Apple put themselves where they are. They've made well documented huge blunders.
It's up to them to dig themselves out of the hole they made.
Luckily, I think they now have the strategy and vision to go where they need to go.
More software, better CPU hardware, DLD and retails stores. And a killer OS (Panther!) are all part of the puzzle.
The Mac has low market share because Apple has made some incredibly poor moves throughout its history that has kept its marketshare low
well...
actually it has to do with education and breeding.
higher educated people look for them selfs what is best for their needs.
mac or windows.
lower educated people ask a relative (also lower educated) what to buy.
their most important motivation is getting the most for less. (apple looks like less for more) and the software for wintel machines is for free. (you don't buy it you copy it or rip it from internet) they don't look ad quality but at quantity (that's why they are so often to fat)
wintel sells better because their userbase increases faster because wintel machine owners multiply much better than mac-users.
actually it has to do with education and breeding.
higher educated people look for them selfs what is best for their needs.
mac or windows.
lower educated people ask a relative (also lower educated) what to buy.
their most important motivation is getting the most for less. (apple looks like less for more) and the software for wintel machines is for free. (you don't buy it you copy it or rip it from internet) they don't look ad quality but at quantity (that's why they are so often to fat)
wintel sells better because their userbase increases faster because wintel machine owners multiply much better than mac-users.
Oh.... my..... lord.....
PLEASE tell me that this is sarcasm, or a joke, and not how you actually feel. If not... well, I don't even know where to begin...
Having a low end Mac is not pandering to the cheap PC consumers crowd. It is making the Mac more ubiquitous, or found everywhere. This in turn makes the Mac a more viable computer platform, increasing the confidence of developers and institutional buyers.
School districts and struggling small business are not apt to shell out extra cash buy computers with more performance and features than they need. If fifty percent of their' computer needs can be met only with low cost Windows PCs, because there is no Mac equivalent, what incentive is there to consider Macs for the rest of their computers? The tendency is to keep things consistent in an attempt to simplify support, maintenance and purchasing. They may be misguided, but if they believe it, that is what will influence their decision.
The fact that such a low end Mac would also appeal to many consumers too is just icing on the cake. It could also help increase sales of more profitable, digital hub Macs too, in a round about way. Several have commented in other threads that the majority of Windows PCs sold are not low cost. People start looking at the low end, hoping to get a cheap computer, but wind up buying a much more costly and higher performance system. Well, such buyers begin their search looking only at Windows PCs, because there is no low cost Mac. When they decide to get a much better system, it is the platform they began looking at. If the Mac had a low cost, low end product too, some of these shoppers would be considering both platforms. Just a thought.
Low cost macs will not make the slightest difference to the edu market. Education buying is controlled by central It departments which are populated solely by windows users - the mac to them is an expensive toy. Our It department buys win pcs cheaply and standardise on windows for the college (well over 1500 pcs). these pcs are not cut downs or limited at all. they all have faster mobos / procs, better graphics cards, more ram, bigger hds, usb ports et al than the emac or imac yet cost a fraction of the price. if apple started selling low cost macs do you really think it could compete on features per unit cost?
we in our department (multimedia) are completely mac based. why? becuase originally, only macs could do graphics and multimedia. today our IT managers know that you can get premiere, director, photoshop, maya etc for windows so what exactly can a mac do that windows pcs cannot for a fraction of the price? if we buy 20 dual G4s apple will give us an extra £50 or so off the cost of each. if we buy no name pcs (20 of), 5 of them will effectively be free, with a couple of printers and scanners thrown into the mix.
what apple needs is a persuasive and demonstratable argument and list of things that a mac can do that a pc cannot.
why did we start out with 20 beige macs? becuase director, photoshop, premiere, infinidi, electric image, etc were only available for macos. the first video capture cards were mac only. the first hi res printers were mac only.
the emac is over priced and underspecced for its market. the LC was popular becuase of what you could do with it compared to a pc - the added cost of hardware and software for pcs made it ironically cheaper to get the LC.
if apple brought out a £200 mac that was competitive, the windows bias is so entrenched that it wouldn't even egister in teerms of increasing market share. apple would be far better of spending their cash on:
1) making OS X work (faster, better and totally GUI - the average joe doesnot want a command line - EVER)
2) move to newer, faster and more innovative technologies instead of just apeing PC internal hardware.
3) ADVERTISE !!!!!
its astounding that in this day and age there are some people who don't know what a mac is or even that it exists. I'm even more astounded that apple seems happy with that situation. how they can come up with a deal with PC World for example and then be happy that PC World sales staff are continually dissing the mac to custoimers and persuading ciustomers to buy a packard bell instead is beyond me.
I think apple needs a low cost swicher box, but expandable pcslots, ram are a must, expandable drives, no way. I agree that apple has failed miserably on the switch campaign. joe schmoe talking about no drivers, meand nothing to most consumers. Real important differances that john Q consumer can understand.
*Overall* market share might be low with respect to the entire Windows-based world, but Apple's OS(s) is/are the #2 largest of all but Windows... and it's the #1 Unix OS. Furthermore, market share is very misleading in that say 5% could represent 50 million users. Similarly, if you break those percentages down within submarkets like print, audio and video, design etc., the Mac's percentage is significantly greater. It all depends how you want to bake the numbers. Still, razor-thin margains in our current economy seems to be a disaster in the making. I mean who other then Dell is actually *making* money (profit) on their systems? And it's not been proven that these dirt-cheap PCs are the *best selling* units commanding the highest sales volume. It would be interesting to know what the best-selling price range for a Windoze-based PC actually is. I'm wondering why Programmer and Amorph haven't chimed in with their impervious reasoning yet... Probably because (as others have already stated) this discussion has been beaten beyond comprehension.
Programmer, TJM, McCrab, Tome of the Unknown and others make solid arguments here:
Low cost macs will not make the slightest difference to the edu market.
It sure as hell would,
When the local school district abandoned the Macintosh during the 2000-2001 school year price was the ONLY factor.
There was a mandate that the Humanities and Science had to intergrate computers into their program, all of the sudden schools needed hundrads more computers.
They could get 250% more computers from Dell than they could from Apple with the same money. Game Over.
The fact Dell offered 3 years onsite support in the purchase price also worked greatly to their advantage.
Had Apple made an even remotely competitive bid it would have worked greatly to their advantage
Comments
With the 970 in 'Power'Macs, laptops and maybe imac2s relatively soon...then a low cost g3/g4 Mac ipizza box makes perfect sense.
Game on for Dell payback?
I can't wait to see what 2nd half 2003 has in store....
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by spooky
No, No, No, No No. . .
apple has spent the past 4 years pandering to the low end, grandpa joe consumer brigade and gotten nothing out of ... I say, lets have the dual and quad 970s with enough power technology to blow a crater 5 miles in radius around the cinema display
I agree with others that Apple has to address both ends. We 'know' the 970 is coming. I hope it will be fast enough to satisfy your craving. But what is happening at the other end? Steve?
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
and the education market prefers the simplicity of all-in-one
no they don't, they hate them.
Education likes to be able to replace computers and save money by reusing the monitor for several generations.
The useful life of a good quality monitor is damn near 10 years, opposed to the three or four year useful life of computers.
Steve Jobs thinks the education market prefers the simplicity of all-in-one, there is a difference, Steve Jobs thinks alots of things
Something like this would be cool (if released in this time frame):
Single G4 @ 1 GHZ
133 mhz fsb, 266 DDR
Geforce 4MX with 32MB DDR in AGP slot.
ADC, VGA, S-Video/Video connector
40 GB HD, CDRW
The usual firewire and usb connectors
$899
Single G4 @ 1.27 GHZ
133 mhz fsb, 266 DDR ram
Radeon 9000 with 64MB DDR in AGP Slot
ADC, VGA, S-Video/Video out connectors
60 GB HD, CDRW
The usual firewire and usb connectors
$1099
Give it Mini-Xserve looks with at least two usb and one firewire port in the front.
If these were released then I'd make the eMac edu only again and kill the lower level powermac!
The accusations of me smoking crack may now begin!
Originally posted by Utmost
I really don't see the possibility of a "low cast Mac" on the horizon. Nor would I necesarilly want to. Macintosh computers have always primarily appealed to a certain niche market and Apple has specifically designed the hardware and the software around that purpose in mind. Most computer users (and most prospective computer users) would simply never feel comfortable using a Mac, as they are not tailored to the lowest common denominator as Windows and Intel/etc. is.
Wow. Eliteist much? With the Macintosh, Apple has gone out of their way to design a computer/operating system/user interface that is simple and elegant to use. Most people who extol the virtues of the Mac OS state that "ease of use" is one of the most important features. You're saying that the reason the Mac has such low market share is because the OS doesn't pander to the "lowest common denominator?" Ridiculousness. "Most users" don't feel comfortable on a Mac because all they've ever known is Windows. Reverse the situation, and a longtime Mac user would feel just as uncomfortable on Windows.
The Mac has low market share because Apple has made some incredibly poor moves throughout its history that has kept its marketshare low (there have been entire books written on this). Had Apple played the game more like IBM/Microsoft, we might be railing against the Apple hegemony now while using the scrappy underdog Windows OS from that perennial loser, Microsoft.
The Mac has low market share because Apple has made some incredibly poor moves throughout its history that has kept its marketshare low (there have been entire books written on this). Had Apple played the game more like IBM/Microsoft, we might be railing against the Apple hegemony now while using the scrappy underdog Windows OS from that perennial loser, Microsoft.
Agreed. Smack talk about 'lowest common denom' and 'niche' isn't helpful. If Apple could have 95%, they would. Their stated goal from the top brass is growth. That's the only way they're going to move on from break-even to a much more profitable company.
Apple put themselves where they are. They've made well documented huge blunders.
It's up to them to dig themselves out of the hole they made.
Luckily, I think they now have the strategy and vision to go where they need to go.
More software, better CPU hardware, DLD and retails stores. And a killer OS (Panther!) are all part of the puzzle.
Go Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by highfalutintodd
The Mac has low market share because Apple has made some incredibly poor moves throughout its history that has kept its marketshare low
well...
actually it has to do with education and breeding.
higher educated people look for them selfs what is best for their needs.
mac or windows.
lower educated people ask a relative (also lower educated) what to buy.
their most important motivation is getting the most for less. (apple looks like less for more) and the software for wintel machines is for free. (you don't buy it you copy it or rip it from internet) they don't look ad quality but at quantity (that's why they are so often to fat)
wintel sells better because their userbase increases faster because wintel machine owners multiply much better than mac-users.
Originally posted by gar
well...
actually it has to do with education and breeding.
higher educated people look for them selfs what is best for their needs.
mac or windows.
lower educated people ask a relative (also lower educated) what to buy.
their most important motivation is getting the most for less. (apple looks like less for more) and the software for wintel machines is for free. (you don't buy it you copy it or rip it from internet) they don't look ad quality but at quantity (that's why they are so often to fat)
wintel sells better because their userbase increases faster because wintel machine owners multiply much better than mac-users.
PLEASE tell me that this is sarcasm, or a joke, and not how you actually feel. If not... well, I don't even know where to begin...
School districts and struggling small business are not apt to shell out extra cash buy computers with more performance and features than they need. If fifty percent of their' computer needs can be met only with low cost Windows PCs, because there is no Mac equivalent, what incentive is there to consider Macs for the rest of their computers? The tendency is to keep things consistent in an attempt to simplify support, maintenance and purchasing. They may be misguided, but if they believe it, that is what will influence their decision.
The fact that such a low end Mac would also appeal to many consumers too is just icing on the cake. It could also help increase sales of more profitable, digital hub Macs too, in a round about way. Several have commented in other threads that the majority of Windows PCs sold are not low cost. People start looking at the low end, hoping to get a cheap computer, but wind up buying a much more costly and higher performance system. Well, such buyers begin their search looking only at Windows PCs, because there is no low cost Mac. When they decide to get a much better system, it is the platform they began looking at. If the Mac had a low cost, low end product too, some of these shoppers would be considering both platforms. Just a thought.
we in our department (multimedia) are completely mac based. why? becuase originally, only macs could do graphics and multimedia. today our IT managers know that you can get premiere, director, photoshop, maya etc for windows so what exactly can a mac do that windows pcs cannot for a fraction of the price? if we buy 20 dual G4s apple will give us an extra £50 or so off the cost of each. if we buy no name pcs (20 of), 5 of them will effectively be free, with a couple of printers and scanners thrown into the mix.
what apple needs is a persuasive and demonstratable argument and list of things that a mac can do that a pc cannot.
why did we start out with 20 beige macs? becuase director, photoshop, premiere, infinidi, electric image, etc were only available for macos. the first video capture cards were mac only. the first hi res printers were mac only.
the emac is over priced and underspecced for its market. the LC was popular becuase of what you could do with it compared to a pc - the added cost of hardware and software for pcs made it ironically cheaper to get the LC.
if apple brought out a £200 mac that was competitive, the windows bias is so entrenched that it wouldn't even egister in teerms of increasing market share. apple would be far better of spending their cash on:
1) making OS X work (faster, better and totally GUI - the average joe doesnot want a command line - EVER)
2) move to newer, faster and more innovative technologies instead of just apeing PC internal hardware.
3) ADVERTISE !!!!!
its astounding that in this day and age there are some people who don't know what a mac is or even that it exists. I'm even more astounded that apple seems happy with that situation. how they can come up with a deal with PC World for example and then be happy that PC World sales staff are continually dissing the mac to custoimers and persuading ciustomers to buy a packard bell instead is beyond me.
would it kill apple to spread the word?
hmmmm.. the pc switchers buying and generating 40% of sales thru apple stores would disagree.
Programmer, TJM, McCrab, Tome of the Unknown and others make solid arguments here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...0&pagenumber=2
Perhaps a few people should consider what they had to say...
--
Ed M.
Originally posted by highfalutintodd
PLEASE tell me that this is sarcasm, or a joke, and not how you actually feel. If not... well, I don't even know where to begin...
sorry, i had the urge to say something really stupid.
Originally posted by spooky
Low cost macs will not make the slightest difference to the edu market.
It sure as hell would,
When the local school district abandoned the Macintosh during the 2000-2001 school year price was the ONLY factor.
There was a mandate that the Humanities and Science had to intergrate computers into their program, all of the sudden schools needed hundrads more computers.
They could get 250% more computers from Dell than they could from Apple with the same money. Game Over.
The fact Dell offered 3 years onsite support in the purchase price also worked greatly to their advantage.
Had Apple made an even remotely competitive bid it would have worked greatly to their advantage
Originally posted by keyboardf12
>that apple has failed miserably
hmmmm.. the pc switchers buying and generating 40% of sales thru apple stores would disagree.
40% of shit it still shit
Lemon Bon Bon