[[[First of all Apple knows it is behind the 8-Ball. They do not think that the Mac faithful will always be there, because at one time Macintosh held about 8% to 9% of the market and now it is around 4.5%. ]]]
Wrong. The actual numbers are *growing* That's why the market share number is misleading -- because it's showing a decline.
[[[What does Apples future hold? ]]]
A lot of good things and certainly more than say a company like Gateway... (Hint: read my other threads that I posted recently on other topics here at AI).
\t
[[[Intel & AMD: The speed of there chips increase and their cost keeps going down. ]]]
And still Dell is the only company selling enough of them to churn a profit. Apple is also making a profit. This is another irrelevant point. \t
[[[Apple would have a problem with this. The first of their problems would be the margins; most people would expect the cost of apple hardware to be in line with comparable hardware (same processors, video, memory, etc.… from Dell, HP, and Gateway. ]]]
Aside for the technically difficult, backward-looking, shortsighted, short-term solution and bug issues galore, These companies either do ZERO Research and Development or close to ZERO. They slap together commodity parts that offer questionable reliability and interoperability. And believe it or not, Intel CPUs are more expensive than PPCs. And let's see ANY of those companies develop a usable, efficient, user-friendly operating system that has developer and app support. These companies don't do the R&D on the hardware or the OS. All they do is assemble, repackage and sell. There is a HUGE difference between their products and what Apple delivers.
[[[Dell may be able to survive on single digit margins because of their percentage of the market and their direct sales only, but Apple would die.]]]
Again with the "Apple is doomed" scenario... Sheesh.
Ed M how many times are you gonna post the same repley in different treads?
To come back on on what pscates said: You're being to pessimistic. This will be speculated: quad core G5 up to 8Ghz with organictransport technology 1Ghz FSB, iBooks with single core G5 upto 2ghz (slimmer then ever imagened) with superdrive (rev 3),to make things short G5 across whole line, QT X, itunes 5, iCal 4 you (haha), 24" widescreen for 1500$, 14" tablet with G5 for business trips OS X.5.3.1. Pirices for iMac's starts at 799$ with 19"widescreen, PM starts at 1000$, Xserve= 1800$.
If this won't come at MWNY ,it must come at MWSF 2004. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
However, that doesn't exempt Apple from being competitive. With some prices twice or three times the PC equivalent.
If this isn't the case, then why do Apple only have 3-5%? They've capitulated in profits over market share. Advertising. Mindshare. Neglect of their OS. Blunders in heartland markets... Things guilty of in past. Much of this is being addressed in the last few years of Apple history. Getting better on most fronts.
If you don't sell enough product it can be hard to be competitive on price. There's a fine line between Apple shrinking the company and reaching the kind of economies of scale that will allow them to reach 'criticical mass' or even 10%. Apple have to increase market share so they can compete on price and economies of scale...otherwise Dell will erode them into nothing. A threat that shouldn't be underestimated. Apple have already lost the number one spot to Dell in Education. There's no reason to think that can't begin to happen in the print industry too.
Historically, Apple's short term profits over marketshare philosophy has attributed to their current market share.
Currently, I feel Apple are a way off being competitive on specs.
With a Power4lite processor, Apple have a chance to level the performance playing fields if the processor is delivered any time next year.
And put a decent amount of ram in their machines. They always skimp.
I still they can do more to be price competitive. I don't mind a 10% price premium for eg. But it's often ridiculously more...for older tech, less ram, slower cpu... It's quite unforgiveable now that Apple IS using many industry standard components. Just look at adding ram or a couple of hard drives on Apple's store. They price themselves out of business. I'd update my machines more often if their prices were better.
I think the truth may be it's up to how fast apple can sell enough computer rather than how fast moto can produce faster CPU. If Apple can't empty they 1GHz or 1.25GHz CPU stock, it's a net loss for Apple, those
CPU is too hot and can't fit in an iMac or eMac.
Dual processor is a good pratice,as Moto cut the chip price, you can get a competive performance with x86 high frquency chip .
As I know , dual 1.25GHz G4 is definately fast than a 2.53GHz intel(1+1>>2).Why? you got task run in parell.
And almost all application is multithreaded. And of course it's OS that fully utilize this benefit.(Oh,that's why Apple is putting all their effort on the OS X upgrading).
Current Darwin implementation is still perform poorly on multithreads.
No evidence to support that statement, just thinking aloud..."
That would make an interesting machine. On Jag'...
That's the spec the Register claims is coming this January. Well. I think they claim the 7500 is the chip that will be on Rio.
It would be okay. As some folks on these boards have suggested, it takes a year to put these machines together, planning wise. So, such a beast could already be in its final testing for San Fran'?
I don't think the 'all duals' will continue if that's the case.
<strong>As I know , dual 1.25GHz G4 is definately fast than a 2.53GHz intel(1+1>>2).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Care to cite your sources?
Last time I checked (@barefeats) the dual GHz SDR was actually faster--but I'll concede, in most tests they were really head to head--than the new DDR model.
And somewhere @digitalMediaNet (it probably was DigitalVideoEditing) they showed the 2.53 P4 cruelly spanking the same dual GHz SDR G4. Intel is introducing 3.06 GHz P4s in November with hyperthreading--and possibly a faster bus @667 MHz, though I'm not sure of this, it might be delayed until early '03--, and AMD will follow with the new 2800+ XPs with the new 333 MHz FSB.
So, even if what you said were true--which is not--it would be true for another six weeks at most.
Blatantly false, and believing in it doesn't make it true. Move along...
Blatantly false, and believing in it doesn't make it true. Move along...
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
... some people still secretly think the world is their mother, and therefore, if they believe in something strong enough - even if it makes absolutely no sense - the world will then magically be too ashamed to let them down, and thus, they'll get what they want ...
Zoso, I think it's our duty to lift such a burden from these gentle yet misguided souls, and kindly assure those so striken:
[[[There's a fine line between Apple shrinking the company and reaching the kind of economies of scale that will allow them to reach 'criticical mass' or even 10%. Apple have to increase market share so they can compete on price and economies of scale...otherwise Dell will erode them into nothing. A threat that shouldn't be underestimated. ]]]
I don't think this is the case at all. Let's face it, not everyone buys Toyota Carollas or Ford Escorts. There are companies with market shares even smaller than Apple's that exist in competitive markets that are doing just fine. Sony, Ferrari, BMW, SK tools and many others.
You see, Apple isn't competing with the rest of the industry exactly because they are truly offering something *different*. If price is all you are looking at...
The PC market at large really doesn't provide any differentiation. It would be like the auto manufacturers designing a car with exactly the same basic design (and have all the parts interchangeable) and the only thing they change is the name/emblem on the bumper, and maybe a few other things. Worse yet, all the competing PC manufacturers are selling machines with Windows. Yikes!
Another thing to keep in mind is that Apple is CONSTANTLY compared to the ENTIRE Windows-based x86 market. That's extremely misleading, since it seems that the 95% market share figure is awarded to ALL the PC OEMs... How much market share does Gateway have? Micron? Dell? Acer? Compaq? How many PC companies came AFTER Apple and thought that they were going to survive forever (suckling on Micro$oft's teats) and are now gone? The point I'm trying to make is that Apple can survive on 5% market share as long as the actual numbers of machines in use is increasing and the number of machines that are sold is increasing. 5% of 400-million people is a HUGE number... (as an example)
[[[Historically, Apple's short term profits over marketshare philosophy has attributed to their current market share. ]]]
Let's try this again... Apple's number of actual units is GROWING. Forget market share.
[[[I don't mind a 10% price premium for eg. But it's often ridiculously more...]]]
That's because they *do* ridiculously more in terms of R&D on the hardware AND on the OS for the mass market as well as professional development AND on the apps. AND on the crossplatform apps/utilities AND on Industry Standards... etc. The list goes on. Not ONE other PC OEM can claim anything close to that in terms of self-sustaining R&D. Dell certainly couldn't develop their own OS or industry-standard port or even their own motherboard and associated hardware. They are just a repackager - just like all the other PC OEMs out there. That's why the PC industry is in a slump, no one is really offering anything really different from the next guy.
[[[It's quite unforgiveable now that Apple IS using many industry standard components. ]]]
Apple does not use commodity parts that are off the shelf. The case, the motherboard and supporting chips, the OS all figure into the equation. What OS does Dell have to develop and maintain? What Apps does Dell produce? What cases does Del design and manufacture? What motherboard does Dell design? You should be more specific when you use the words "components"
[[[Just look at adding ram or a couple of hard drives on Apple's store.]]]
Go to the other OEMs and compare Apple's prices to their RAM prices and you will see little (if any) difference.
Apple needs marketshare to keep developers on board. Im sorry, but you can tell me car analogies all day long, and its still not a perfect matching analogy.
In the long run, selling 170K PowerMac units/Q is going to hurt Apple.
I don't think this is the case at all. Let's face it, not everyone buys Toyota Carollas or Ford Escorts. There are companies with market shares even smaller than Apple's that exist in competitive markets that are doing just fine. Sony, Ferrari, BMW, SK tools and many others.
Ed M.</strong><hr></blockquote>
... Sorry Ed, but the car analogy is as old as it is dangerously misleading, as nice as it is to call Apple the "BMW" of the computer world, that's really just old Jean Loius Gasse's RDF reverberating: here's why ...
In the world of cars, neither Ford, GM, Toyota etc own the roads, so it doesn't matter if you buy an A to B car, like a Ford or even a Yugo (if you can find one), or a BMW or even a Rolls Royce ... because no matter what car you choose to purchase, all the same roads are open to you.
There is no "check" to see if the car you're driving is "compatible" with a certain highway before you're allowed to use it. You want to get to New York from Boston, the only difference the car makes is the comfort of the ride.
This is NOT the case with competing computer systems at all.
The best transportation analogy with computers is the old 19th century railroad wars - where one company's rail gauge was different than another's; it becomes a turf war of compatability and standards, where, halfway thru the trip, the customer can't just switch systems/tracks, because that means a very costly unload from one incompatible system, to another ... it's just too expensive. So you stay with whatever system sets the standard in whatever field you're in, because long term, it's still cheaper than switching.
Seen thru those eyes, suddenly the reason for Apple's iron grip on the creative community makes sense; as well as the reason for Micro$ofts iron grip on the corporate desktop - it's not mere corporate "boneheadedness" as some here like to espouse, it's cost and hassle factor - Micro$soft knows this, they price accordingly (plucking as many feathers from the corporate goose as they can before it squawks too loudly) this is why they with their "good enough" philosophy can win, even if Apple's better, MS simply owns the corporate railroad track, and if you take into consideration the cost of unloading and realoading onto an incompatible system, it's rarely worth it.
The only way to win in such a game is to:
A - become the standard way to get people to a new hot destination, like "video editing" - ville.
B - become so incomparibly cheaper and better than the competition, that it's worth the hassle of unloading.
C - become so much cheaper for brand new railroad customers than the competition, to get the new hot destination, that despite the fact the competition is better and worth the price, all the new riders who don't know any better, and therefore choose you and make you the standard anyway.
Option B rarely happens.
Option C was Microsoft's ace in the hole, it's now been degraded to about a one eyed jack, now that most people who are going to buy a computer, have bought one and are familliar with using one.
Anyway:
Please note, that once your tracks to a certain destination get ripped up, and the competition takes over, it's very very hard to get them re-established ( this is why the education wars are so bloody). This is exactly why market share - per destination (ie desktop publishing, busness stuff, music etc) actually matters ... if you no longer become the standard way people choose to get from A to B, the competing system will take over, and you'll never get back in.
Thus, Apple can only win by laying new track to new destinations (which they are trying to do with video and audio stuff, while holding onto the routes the currently own, and getting to people for whom the cost of unloading from one system to another is cheapest ... read: home users.
The problem? If you've got slow chips, the competition can claim that they're the fastest and cheapest way to get to the new places you're trying to set the standards on (that old evil option C) ... now you're in trouble, because one of the only ways to gain market share (which is important simply because it allows you the power to set the standards) is being taken from you.
Why do slow towers hurt?
Well, it allows the MS world to attack the Apple creative strong hold ... to start ripping up the Apple track, and start putting their own in - which is what IT departments who make their living by how many machines they control, dream of.
I don't think Apple's machines are slow enough today to justify a critical number of users to unload and reload onto MS systems, thus allowing a significant portion (and perhaps fatal portion) of Apple track to get ripped up ... but I do know that Apple can't take much more of this - they need faster chips soon.
And the car analogy? It's a Jean Louis-Gasse-ism
which Uncle Steve knows is questionable (look at what happened to Apple when they actually believed it back in the early 90's) ... yet Steve is being forced utter, to defend a small market share - why does market share matter?
Ed M. You can say all day that selling more units per market share decline is a good thing but in reality it isn't. Typically sounds like someone making the numbers add up to the way they like it. Though there is a decline in sales of computers in a general sense, the market of people wanting a computer is growing.. and always will. Numbers will always increase as well when you trend it to a growing market that wants a computer. I think your are way off if you look at apples goals one of the biggest ambitions they have is growing marketshare. Marketshare is the only way to compare yourself to your competitors. Sales numbers increasing my a miniscule 3% is ridicoulous to saying that numbers are increasing, 3% of 170k is only 5100 units I believe.. and only .09 percent of all apple sales are switcher sales. If you really want to help Apple out upgrade your system, the problem with our market is our users stick on the same computer for 4-6 years, while pc users upgrade as often as twice a year, and have more than one computer on average.
If Apple wants sales, all they needs to do is convince current CRT iMac owners to upgrade. That's like 6 million people. Only problem is current machines aren't fast enough to convince happy iMac users to switch. CRT iMacs are still fast enough for AppleWorks, IE, and iTunes. A SuperDrive iMac is only about three times faster than the orginal iMac. Maybe if it was 10 times faster, some people would decide they need that speed. Or if the SuperDrive came on all iMacs, people would decide they need to burn DVDs. Getting current Mac users to upgrade is just as important as geting Windows users to switch. Faster hardware and SuperDrives across the board would convince many to ditch their old machines, at least in theory.
Fantasy Apple. A game where we make Apple's business decisions for them. Could be fun. Bit like fantasy football over here in the UK.
Ed M. I feel your marketshare arguments are misplaced as far as Apple are concerned.
Apple needs to grow in economies of scale to compete with the Dells to some degree. If the price disparity becomes too great ( and someone above suggests that PC users upgrade more often than Mac heads. Macs more reliable? How about PCs are cheaper, easy to upgrade and offer more bang for buck.) then Apple won't be able to compete on price. They offer less ram and inferior graphic cards at the same price point.
This doesn't make me go out and buy PC. But I won't subidise Apple just because all they've got is the latest stop gap towers.
In fact, Apple are reported (Macworld story) to be buying components in greater numbers from Taiwan in order to improve their competitiveness.
Computers seem to be coming down in price all the time...but Apple seems to think they can tread water with nine month update cycles.
Not so. If they've got 95% of the market to aim at and Dell are selling to an even more saturated market than Apple is...
...then how come Dell sell millions of computers more than Apple?
Specs and price are the bottom line.
I find it interesting that you suppose PCs don't differentiate product lines. That's not what I see in a PC World or Micro Mart magazines.
If economies of scale don't matter then how come M$ and their PC partners hosed Apple?
Apple were merely one. M$ and cronies many.
Apple had their chance. They chose not to.
Thats why they are fighting to stay relevant. They're making a fist of it now...but they're going to have to do better with the bottom line.
it would be cool if there was. Just a forum to discuss apple's business, and implenting your business with apple products.. I think that would be a good idea.
And another thing. Apple's software and hardware divisions should be profitable on their own. One should not subsidise the other.
Note, Apple is increasing its line of software and is charging for it too. They are charging full whack for Jag'. So they should. Premium hardware prices should not sub' Jag' OS give aways. Apple needs to start charging and making money on its software from .Mac to Quicktime to OS..to its recent aquisitions. Don't be too surprised if Apple offers more software products soon...and charges for them also.
Hardware, likewise should have to compete.
If Apple can sell Os X for less than M$ does...a bigger competitor than Dell...then they should compete harder on harderware as well...they may not match Dell's prices equally. But I think they should get closer on specs and price.
That may help those Apple reps in stores 'close the sale', eh?
Comments
Wrong. The actual numbers are *growing* That's why the market share number is misleading -- because it's showing a decline.
[[[What does Apples future hold? ]]]
A lot of good things and certainly more than say a company like Gateway... (Hint: read my other threads that I posted recently on other topics here at AI).
\t
[[[Intel & AMD: The speed of there chips increase and their cost keeps going down. ]]]
And still Dell is the only company selling enough of them to churn a profit. Apple is also making a profit. This is another irrelevant point. \t
[[[Apple would have a problem with this. The first of their problems would be the margins; most people would expect the cost of apple hardware to be in line with comparable hardware (same processors, video, memory, etc.… from Dell, HP, and Gateway. ]]]
Aside for the technically difficult, backward-looking, shortsighted, short-term solution and bug issues galore, These companies either do ZERO Research and Development or close to ZERO. They slap together commodity parts that offer questionable reliability and interoperability. And believe it or not, Intel CPUs are more expensive than PPCs. And let's see ANY of those companies develop a usable, efficient, user-friendly operating system that has developer and app support. These companies don't do the R&D on the hardware or the OS. All they do is assemble, repackage and sell. There is a HUGE difference between their products and what Apple delivers.
[[[Dell may be able to survive on single digit margins because of their percentage of the market and their direct sales only, but Apple would die.]]]
Again with the "Apple is doomed" scenario... Sheesh.
--
Ed
To come back on on what pscates said: You're being to pessimistic. This will be speculated: quad core G5 up to 8Ghz with organictransport technology 1Ghz FSB, iBooks with single core G5 upto 2ghz (slimmer then ever imagened) with superdrive (rev 3),to make things short G5 across whole line, QT X, itunes 5, iCal 4 you (haha), 24" widescreen for 1500$, 14" tablet with G5 for business trips OS X.5.3.1. Pirices for iMac's starts at 799$ with 19"widescreen, PM starts at 1000$, Xserve= 1800$.
If this won't come at MWNY ,it must come at MWSF 2004.
Apple aren't Dell. They aint Wall Mart.
However, that doesn't exempt Apple from being competitive. With some prices twice or three times the PC equivalent.
If this isn't the case, then why do Apple only have 3-5%? They've capitulated in profits over market share. Advertising. Mindshare. Neglect of their OS. Blunders in heartland markets... Things guilty of in past. Much of this is being addressed in the last few years of Apple history. Getting better on most fronts.
If you don't sell enough product it can be hard to be competitive on price. There's a fine line between Apple shrinking the company and reaching the kind of economies of scale that will allow them to reach 'criticical mass' or even 10%. Apple have to increase market share so they can compete on price and economies of scale...otherwise Dell will erode them into nothing. A threat that shouldn't be underestimated. Apple have already lost the number one spot to Dell in Education. There's no reason to think that can't begin to happen in the print industry too.
Historically, Apple's short term profits over marketshare philosophy has attributed to their current market share.
Currently, I feel Apple are a way off being competitive on specs.
With a Power4lite processor, Apple have a chance to level the performance playing fields if the processor is delivered any time next year.
And put a decent amount of ram in their machines. They always skimp.
I still they can do more to be price competitive. I don't mind a 10% price premium for eg. But it's often ridiculously more...for older tech, less ram, slower cpu... It's quite unforgiveable now that Apple IS using many industry standard components. Just look at adding ram or a couple of hard drives on Apple's store. They price themselves out of business. I'd update my machines more often if their prices were better.
...same old story...just for running 'X'.
If they 'G5' aint coming at San Fran'. What is?
Lemon Bon Bon
No evidence to support that statement, just thinking aloud...
CPU is too hot and can't fit in an iMac or eMac.
Dual processor is a good pratice,as Moto cut the chip price, you can get a competive performance with x86 high frquency chip .
As I know , dual 1.25GHz G4 is definately fast than a 2.53GHz intel(1+1>>2).Why? you got task run in parell.
And almost all application is multithreaded. And of course it's OS that fully utilize this benefit.(Oh,that's why Apple is putting all their effort on the OS X upgrading).
Current Darwin implementation is still perform poorly on multithreads.
[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: byxiao ]
[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: byxiao ]</p>
No evidence to support that statement, just thinking aloud..."
That would make an interesting machine. On Jag'...
That's the spec the Register claims is coming this January. Well. I think they claim the 7500 is the chip that will be on Rio.
It would be okay. As some folks on these boards have suggested, it takes a year to put these machines together, planning wise. So, such a beast could already be in its final testing for San Fran'?
I don't think the 'all duals' will continue if that's the case.
Hmmm. Where's Dorsal when you need him, huh?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>As I know , dual 1.25GHz G4 is definately fast than a 2.53GHz intel(1+1>>2).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Care to cite your sources?
Last time I checked (@barefeats) the dual GHz SDR was actually faster--but I'll concede, in most tests they were really head to head--than the new DDR model.
And somewhere @digitalMediaNet (it probably was DigitalVideoEditing) they showed the 2.53 P4 cruelly spanking the same dual GHz SDR G4. Intel is introducing 3.06 GHz P4s in November with hyperthreading--and possibly a faster bus @667 MHz, though I'm not sure of this, it might be delayed until early '03--, and AMD will follow with the new 2800+ XPs with the new 333 MHz FSB.
So, even if what you said were true--which is not--it would be true for another six weeks at most.
Blatantly false, and believing in it doesn't make it true. Move along...
ZoSo
<strong>
Blatantly false, and believing in it doesn't make it true. Move along...
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
... some people still secretly think the world is their mother, and therefore, if they believe in something strong enough - even if it makes absolutely no sense - the world will then magically be too ashamed to let them down, and thus, they'll get what they want ...
Zoso, I think it's our duty to lift such a burden from these gentle yet misguided souls, and kindly assure those so striken:
Steve Jobs is NOT your mother.
Tomorrow's Topic?
The Tooth Fairy, ontological considerations.
<strong>Steve Jobs is NOT your mother.
Tomorrow's Topic?
The Tooth Fairy, ontological considerations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
OMG, you really made my day...
ZoSo
I don't think this is the case at all. Let's face it, not everyone buys Toyota Carollas or Ford Escorts. There are companies with market shares even smaller than Apple's that exist in competitive markets that are doing just fine. Sony, Ferrari, BMW, SK tools and many others.
You see, Apple isn't competing with the rest of the industry exactly because they are truly offering something *different*. If price is all you are looking at...
The PC market at large really doesn't provide any differentiation. It would be like the auto manufacturers designing a car with exactly the same basic design (and have all the parts interchangeable) and the only thing they change is the name/emblem on the bumper, and maybe a few other things. Worse yet, all the competing PC manufacturers are selling machines with Windows. Yikes!
Another thing to keep in mind is that Apple is CONSTANTLY compared to the ENTIRE Windows-based x86 market. That's extremely misleading, since it seems that the 95% market share figure is awarded to ALL the PC OEMs... How much market share does Gateway have? Micron? Dell? Acer? Compaq? How many PC companies came AFTER Apple and thought that they were going to survive forever (suckling on Micro$oft's teats) and are now gone? The point I'm trying to make is that Apple can survive on 5% market share as long as the actual numbers of machines in use is increasing and the number of machines that are sold is increasing. 5% of 400-million people is a HUGE number... (as an example)
[[[Historically, Apple's short term profits over marketshare philosophy has attributed to their current market share. ]]]
Let's try this again... Apple's number of actual units is GROWING. Forget market share.
[[[I don't mind a 10% price premium for eg. But it's often ridiculously more...]]]
That's because they *do* ridiculously more in terms of R&D on the hardware AND on the OS for the mass market as well as professional development AND on the apps. AND on the crossplatform apps/utilities AND on Industry Standards... etc. The list goes on. Not ONE other PC OEM can claim anything close to that in terms of self-sustaining R&D. Dell certainly couldn't develop their own OS or industry-standard port or even their own motherboard and associated hardware. They are just a repackager - just like all the other PC OEMs out there. That's why the PC industry is in a slump, no one is really offering anything really different from the next guy.
[[[It's quite unforgiveable now that Apple IS using many industry standard components. ]]]
Apple does not use commodity parts that are off the shelf. The case, the motherboard and supporting chips, the OS all figure into the equation. What OS does Dell have to develop and maintain? What Apps does Dell produce? What cases does Del design and manufacture? What motherboard does Dell design? You should be more specific when you use the words "components"
[[[Just look at adding ram or a couple of hard drives on Apple's store.]]]
Go to the other OEMs and compare Apple's prices to their RAM prices and you will see little (if any) difference.
--
Ed M.
In the long run, selling 170K PowerMac units/Q is going to hurt Apple.
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: blabla ]</p>
<strong>
I don't think this is the case at all. Let's face it, not everyone buys Toyota Carollas or Ford Escorts. There are companies with market shares even smaller than Apple's that exist in competitive markets that are doing just fine. Sony, Ferrari, BMW, SK tools and many others.
Ed M.</strong><hr></blockquote>
... Sorry Ed, but the car analogy is as old as it is dangerously misleading, as nice as it is to call Apple the "BMW" of the computer world, that's really just old Jean Loius Gasse's RDF reverberating: here's why ...
In the world of cars, neither Ford, GM, Toyota etc own the roads, so it doesn't matter if you buy an A to B car, like a Ford or even a Yugo (if you can find one), or a BMW or even a Rolls Royce ... because no matter what car you choose to purchase, all the same roads are open to you.
There is no "check" to see if the car you're driving is "compatible" with a certain highway before you're allowed to use it. You want to get to New York from Boston, the only difference the car makes is the comfort of the ride.
This is NOT the case with competing computer systems at all.
The best transportation analogy with computers is the old 19th century railroad wars - where one company's rail gauge was different than another's; it becomes a turf war of compatability and standards, where, halfway thru the trip, the customer can't just switch systems/tracks, because that means a very costly unload from one incompatible system, to another ... it's just too expensive. So you stay with whatever system sets the standard in whatever field you're in, because long term, it's still cheaper than switching.
Seen thru those eyes, suddenly the reason for Apple's iron grip on the creative community makes sense; as well as the reason for Micro$ofts iron grip on the corporate desktop - it's not mere corporate "boneheadedness" as some here like to espouse, it's cost and hassle factor - Micro$soft knows this, they price accordingly (plucking as many feathers from the corporate goose as they can before it squawks too loudly) this is why they with their "good enough" philosophy can win, even if Apple's better, MS simply owns the corporate railroad track, and if you take into consideration the cost of unloading and realoading onto an incompatible system, it's rarely worth it.
The only way to win in such a game is to:
A - become the standard way to get people to a new hot destination, like "video editing" - ville.
B - become so incomparibly cheaper and better than the competition, that it's worth the hassle of unloading.
C - become so much cheaper for brand new railroad customers than the competition, to get the new hot destination, that despite the fact the competition is better and worth the price, all the new riders who don't know any better, and therefore choose you and make you the standard anyway.
Option B rarely happens.
Option C was Microsoft's ace in the hole, it's now been degraded to about a one eyed jack, now that most people who are going to buy a computer, have bought one and are familliar with using one.
Anyway:
Please note, that once your tracks to a certain destination get ripped up, and the competition takes over, it's very very hard to get them re-established ( this is why the education wars are so bloody). This is exactly why market share - per destination (ie desktop publishing, busness stuff, music etc) actually matters ... if you no longer become the standard way people choose to get from A to B, the competing system will take over, and you'll never get back in.
Thus, Apple can only win by laying new track to new destinations (which they are trying to do with video and audio stuff, while holding onto the routes the currently own, and getting to people for whom the cost of unloading from one system to another is cheapest ... read: home users.
The problem? If you've got slow chips, the competition can claim that they're the fastest and cheapest way to get to the new places you're trying to set the standards on (that old evil option C) ... now you're in trouble, because one of the only ways to gain market share (which is important simply because it allows you the power to set the standards) is being taken from you.
Why do slow towers hurt?
Well, it allows the MS world to attack the Apple creative strong hold ... to start ripping up the Apple track, and start putting their own in - which is what IT departments who make their living by how many machines they control, dream of.
I don't think Apple's machines are slow enough today to justify a critical number of users to unload and reload onto MS systems, thus allowing a significant portion (and perhaps fatal portion) of Apple track to get ripped up ... but I do know that Apple can't take much more of this - they need faster chips soon.
And the car analogy? It's a Jean Louis-Gasse-ism
which Uncle Steve knows is questionable (look at what happened to Apple when they actually believed it back in the early 90's) ... yet Steve is being forced utter, to defend a small market share - why does market share matter?
See above ...
Fantasy Apple. A game where we make Apple's business decisions for them. Could be fun. Bit like fantasy football over here in the UK.
Ed M. I feel your marketshare arguments are misplaced as far as Apple are concerned.
Apple needs to grow in economies of scale to compete with the Dells to some degree. If the price disparity becomes too great ( and someone above suggests that PC users upgrade more often than Mac heads. Macs more reliable? How about PCs are cheaper, easy to upgrade and offer more bang for buck.) then Apple won't be able to compete on price. They offer less ram and inferior graphic cards at the same price point.
This doesn't make me go out and buy PC. But I won't subidise Apple just because all they've got is the latest stop gap towers.
In fact, Apple are reported (Macworld story) to be buying components in greater numbers from Taiwan in order to improve their competitiveness.
Computers seem to be coming down in price all the time...but Apple seems to think they can tread water with nine month update cycles.
Not so. If they've got 95% of the market to aim at and Dell are selling to an even more saturated market than Apple is...
...then how come Dell sell millions of computers more than Apple?
Specs and price are the bottom line.
I find it interesting that you suppose PCs don't differentiate product lines. That's not what I see in a PC World or Micro Mart magazines.
If economies of scale don't matter then how come M$ and their PC partners hosed Apple?
Apple were merely one. M$ and cronies many.
Apple had their chance. They chose not to.
Thats why they are fighting to stay relevant. They're making a fist of it now...but they're going to have to do better with the bottom line.
Lemon Bon Bon
Note, Apple is increasing its line of software and is charging for it too. They are charging full whack for Jag'. So they should. Premium hardware prices should not sub' Jag' OS give aways. Apple needs to start charging and making money on its software from .Mac to Quicktime to OS..to its recent aquisitions. Don't be too surprised if Apple offers more software products soon...and charges for them also.
Hardware, likewise should have to compete.
If Apple can sell Os X for less than M$ does...a bigger competitor than Dell...then they should compete harder on harderware as well...they may not match Dell's prices equally. But I think they should get closer on specs and price.
That may help those Apple reps in stores 'close the sale', eh?
Lemon Bon Bon