The $399 question: Revisited by the media
The reason why Apple currently will not increase their marketshare from people switching is because their price points are too high. They are not shipping more units compared to the rest of the industry, they are shipping the same, quarter after quarter. Watch today when they announce shipments. As a result, Apple's markeshare will only decrease further.
The question: Why doesn't Apple produce a $399 computer to gain marketshare?
Don't use that BMW crap. Its like saying, come on, switch automobiles from your Ford (Dell) to a BMW (Apple)! Most people will say, "Yea, right, and how much? You've got to be kidding me, go fly a kite!" But if BMW produced a car at $15K, a lot of people will buy it. If Apple wants people to switch, then they need to introduce a computer at a respectable introduction price.
From today:
<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid={A0BB1418-1350 %2D48A0%2D98A4%2D5FE76FE4ACC1%7D" target="_blank">CBS Marketwatch Article: Apple prices, strategy in question</a>
"We think their price points limit their ability to attract big numbers of new users," said Joel Wagonfeld of Banc of America Securities.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: JPF ]</p>
The question: Why doesn't Apple produce a $399 computer to gain marketshare?
Don't use that BMW crap. Its like saying, come on, switch automobiles from your Ford (Dell) to a BMW (Apple)! Most people will say, "Yea, right, and how much? You've got to be kidding me, go fly a kite!" But if BMW produced a car at $15K, a lot of people will buy it. If Apple wants people to switch, then they need to introduce a computer at a respectable introduction price.
From today:
<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid={A0BB1418-1350 %2D48A0%2D98A4%2D5FE76FE4ACC1%7D" target="_blank">CBS Marketwatch Article: Apple prices, strategy in question</a>
"We think their price points limit their ability to attract big numbers of new users," said Joel Wagonfeld of Banc of America Securities.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: JPF ]</p>
Comments
<strong>The question: Why doesn't Apple produce a $399 computer to gain marketshare?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Not that question AGAIN!
One issue that sprung to my mind while reading this newest rehash of AppleInsider's single most polemic issue: though the market share may have dropped severely (especially since the middle 80s, I guess - that's just an impression, don't shoot me please) the market has grown incredibly, or hasn't it? What with the full-blown advent of the internet in the [later] nineties. I remember that there was a time when people still hand-wrote their bookreports for school. In my day (halfway nineties) many of us already were typing that stuff up. I guess now everything is typed.
Does somebody have any 'numberage'? In the western world, the relation between number of people and computers must be, what 1 in 3 now, or even 1 in 2 (or even more?), where it came from virtually 1 in 100000000... in the late sixties/early seventies. Of course, Apple didn't exist then, so that don't count, it just happens to illustrate my point.
Maybe this discussion would be a bit more constructive?
600MHz PowerPC G3
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM Drive
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K internal modem...
and to top it off...an ATI RAGE 128 card with 16 MB of vram! Whoohoo $800 is a steal for that hot piece of technology! Apple should either drop it completely and say that they aren't a "sub-budget PC" company OR sell it for at most $600. I would buy one of these for my 9 year old sister and my mom if it was better priced. Then it would be Macs : 2/ PCs: 1 in our house.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: wolfeye155 ]</p>
Right now, a professional would be hard pressed to pay ten times more for a dual 1.25 GHZ than an iMac. Really, ten iMacs would be slower, but not ten times slower. And if they were savvy enough to cluster them, well then the $399 machine with $10 in profits would sell in abundance, but the Tower would die. Apple can't afford to do that.
Once there is a big enough performance gap, the price of the low end model will be able to go further down. Look at the laptop lineup for an idea.
The basic issue here is whether Apple should offer a machine that offers a "Mac, Jr." experience, right down to the quality of the case. Should the industry leader in design and systems integration go to the trouble of offering a machine that they don't want people to buy for a price that will negatively impact their financials? Would the analysts balk if the bedrock-conservative Fred Anderson pulled an accounting stunt similar to Dell's to cover for the change in strategy? (Exactly what sort of handwaving did Dell do, anyway, to conjure over $2 billion in one quarter? Does it fall within GAAP?)
I think the CRT iMac is just holding the $799 price point for the eMac, if the eMac survives another year. Something is telling me that Apple's low end offerings are going to get a significant shake-up, although I have no concrete idea of what that will entail.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Just for your information, BMW has already produced at $15K car. It's called the <a href="http://www.mini.com/"; target="_blank">Mini Cooper.</a> And a lot of people are buying it. All that to say, I agree with you 100%!
<strong>Don't use that BMW crap. Its like saying, come on, switch automobiles from your Ford (Dell) to a BMW (Apple)! Most people will say, "Yea, right, and how much? You've got to be kidding me, go fly a kite!" But if BMW produced a car at $15K, a lot of people will buy it. If Apple wants people to switch, then they need to introduce a computer at a respectable introduction price.
Just for your information, BMW has already produced at $15K car. It's called the <a href="http://www.mini.com/"; target="_blank">Mini Cooper.</a> And a lot of people are buying it. All that to say, I agree with you 100%!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Damn, you are right, that is a BMW produced car. Apple really needs to do this. Don't lower prices, introduce new products at market prices to gain marketshare. Makes sense to me. I really like that Mini too. Its slick.
<strong>MINIs are fvcking awesome! I really want one. But, from what I heard, BMW (not a branch of them like MINI) is planning to release a $15-$20,000 vehicle called the 1 Series. They already have them in Europe but they are bringing them to the America's with a new design.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess you don't shop for groceries, have more then 1 friend or buy furniture, because if you did, you wouldnt want a mini. Thry are cool, but they are called mini for a reason. My <male member> is longer then they are.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: KidRed ]</p>
How long would you work for FREE($0) on a Job to gain experience? We're all driven by Revenue. It's easy to point at Apple and say they should cut themselves to the bone but I know I myself woudn't think twice about just giving away my "good" for less than their value.
<strong>Apple is blowing it big time by not selling a reasonably priced upgradeable tower. Not for $399, I'm thinking more like $899. People would flock to buy those suckers. Without this, Apple is doomed.....................</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seeing how Apple has never had a cheap tower I guess that's why people have said Apple is doomed for nearly half a decade now
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: KidRed ]</p>
<strong>I really want one but your right, they aren't that pratical. I'll probably get a VW Golf.</strong><hr></blockquote>
VW has been making some quality products. I have the new jetta and it rocks. The Gulf is the jetta with no trunk basically so you should be happy.
<strong>Why won't Bose release a small cheap radio? Why won't Onkyo release a cheap amplifier? Why won't Bang Olfsen release a cheap alram clock radio? Why won'r Mecerdes release a $15 car? Why won't Lamborghini release a cheap sedan? Why won't Rolex make a cheap watch? Why won't you guys get over this $300 crap?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine. Then they need to stop marketing to the consumer market with these Switch Ads on TV and Time, Newsweek, Businessweek mags. If you want to sell to the upper 3% tax bracket then quit advertising in the wrong places.
I can hear a switch ad for Rolex now,
"My Rolex just works, it keeps everything in order. Perfect time. My Seiko, was like off by 10 minutes, and I over slept, and oh, oh, my dog, oh, didn't make it to class. Bummer. I switched to Rolex."
Doesn't make sense does it? Switch should be a real switch.
Mercedes does have a $15K car, its in Europe and its actually mini van. Its tiny.
<strong>
Fine. Then they need to stop marketing to the consumer market with these Switch Ads on TV and Time, Newsweek, Businessweek mags. If you want to sell to the upper 3% tax bracket then quit advertising in the wrong places. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That is the problem with the Rolex/BMW comparison: Apple does sell consumer products. They just don't sell loss leaders to hook people into buying up to full-featured (and profitable) models.
What's far worse than anything else is the stagnation of the low end desktops. Something happened there, and I can only hope that it's because Apple has a real surprise in the making.
Two high for some of the clearly dated desktop specs they're offering.
Ironic. Apple's laptops are leading the way. Are they cheaper than Wintel? If not, at leat they're close! The specs are good. The design and spec are not compromised. If you bought an Apple laptop, even many PC Apple critics give Apple this, you can't go wrong with an Apple laptop. Apple's desktop strategy should mirror that of the laptops they're selling. Not the cheapest, but for crying out loud, sort the spec and at least get the price within 10% ish of the PC equivalent.
The once proud 400k per quarter machine. iMac G3 looks almost pityful compared to the low end iBook! If Apple can get that low with a laptop...then what the hell are they playing about at with their desktop?
To me, the eMac looks out of its depth. Too little, costs too much. The 'monitor' included is too rigid for schools and buyers who already have a monitor investment.
iMac G3. Out of date. Old. Tired, tired specs. Pricey for what you get.
iMac 2. Gorgeous. Non-expandable. Therefore not as future proof as you'd like. Pricey cos of that. Tired specs. Not cheap enough. The 'low-end' needs driving down further. And the top end could do a bit better on specs.
'power'Mac. Do you really want me to add to Steve666's chorus? It's obvious. A dual 1.25 gig at just over a grand would look pricey to me. No monitor. Weak graphic card for an almost £3k machine. Pant speaker. It looks great. Great access. Dodgy mb. Tired, past it cpu. Yawn. No surprised for the last how many years?
The 970 may not be Apple's critical mass fire-starter. But it will kickstart 'power'Mac sales in my opinion and that will help Apple's bottom line judging by the last quarter. (It's amazing just how many people on all Apple rumour boards are gagging for the G5. It's a running joke. But. It's not funny anymore.) Even non Apple folk, analysts etc are noticing that the cpu issue, is...well, AN ISSUE!
Lemon Bon Bon
Got off track there? (Heh. On track more like.)
£399 inc Vat. Can it be done?
Headless iCube. Can the eMac and iMac G3. Headless Mac. Cheap. A while plastic box with an Apple logo. Keyboard. Mouse. That's it. 1 gig G3, Geforce 2 Mx. Bare 128 ram. Bare hdrive. That would do.
Heh. At the iPod's rate of improvement, it will pass the iMac G3's spec in about a year... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
One thing I like about it, is that I now have a 19" monitor that I picked up from Staples for a net price of $85! I now use that with my iMac on a KVM switch...so I HAVE the 19" iMac!!! ha ha
If Apple would sell a headless cheaper Mac, it would be great to be able to get other components cheaply.
My option included a DVD burner/authoring software for a whopping $159, a few months ago. Works great. I would NOT have bought the DVD burner if it were the added cost that Apple had and still has it for. I mean, $159 is CHEAP!
<strong>Apple is blowing it big time by not selling a reasonably priced upgradeable tower. Not for $399, I'm thinking more like $899. People would flock to buy those suckers. Without this, Apple is doomed.....................</strong><hr></blockquote>
dooomed, dooomed, dooomed, go home now!
sorry, couldnt resist a zim reference.