I don't care if grandmom and some mall rats can't afford Macs. Let them eat cake and buy a cheapo-PC. This is a myth anyway. Macs are priced appropriately. Just because the rest of the PC industry undercuts each other while fighting for markeshare, doesn't mean Macs are overpriced. PC buyers are just spoiled that some companies would rather run themselves into bankruptcy than charge the appropriate value for their products.
Apple only needs to be profitable. The will do so by maintaining high quality standards. Marketshare simply doesn't matter as long as they are profitable.
As long as Jobs is in charge, it matters, because he is passionate about marketshare. Look at just about every MacWorld in years past. That % thing was always mentioned. You really think he's doing it for grins?
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
I have utterly no desire to see them whore out the hardware to 3rd parties or to jump into the fray by cutting their prices below what makes sense for them just to temporarily gain marketshare.
You don't think Apple losing marketshare in corporations and education matters, huh? That is some pretty bizarre thinking. Why are corporations not buying Macs? Because they don't integrate in Windows worlds? No, they do. Because they are unfamiliar with Macs? Maybe but that is hardly a reason to not look at something. Price? Bingo! Who wants to buy, for example, 100 Macs at $1299 a piece when they can buy 100 {fill-in-your-PC-brand} for $699. That comes to $600 difference per machine and, ahem, a $60,000 difference total. Price does matter.
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
I don't care if grandmom and some mall rats can't afford Macs. Let them eat cake and buy a cheapo-PC. This is a myth anyway. Macs are priced appropriately.
That's a crock of crap! Many people can't afford $699 PCs but they get them. Know why? Because they need them at home and for their kids education. Why alienate ANY sector that is willing to buy your products? Especially, incidentally, when it is a very large number of prospective buyers!
Not just that, but the US economy was much better in 99/00 (dot com erra).
Excellent point about economy. It was bliss back then compared to now. Look at the 5 year AAPL stock. Wow! Remember when it was in the 60s? Of course, what a difference the last 6 months make! They went from 12.something to today's 23.something.
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
The eMac is sitting at $799 now, which is pretty good. It is the no-frills iMac. What would you want different?
Headless. Lose the damn CRT already! Seriously, give businesses and education a pizza box mac with limited expandability. Basically a cheap cube, but with 1 pci slot, and a replaceable HD and Video board. Just don't give us the brick-on-a-leash power supply. Those suck!
the emac is the mac for the masses.. I believe this too, I mean c'mon its just a g4 imac. Get over yourself I also think apple should introduce a 699 box thats headless, and stuff. Schools and business don't buy cheap computers folks they usually buy the good stuff but get it at good volume discounts. The 'puter sitting in your lab dudes usually costs around 1000 or so anyhow. And if its compaq, emachines or HP the reason they are in there is they priced themselves out of their margin and now they are bleeding because of it.
You don't think Apple losing marketshare in corporations and education matters, huh? That is some pretty bizarre thinking. Why are corporations not buying Macs? Because they don't integrate in Windows worlds? No, they do. Because they are unfamiliar with Macs? Maybe but that is hardly a reason to not look at something. Price? Bingo! Who wants to buy, for example, 100 Macs at $1299 a piece when they can buy 100 {fill-in-your-PC-brand} for $699. That comes to $600 difference per machine and, ahem, a $60,000 difference total. Price does matter.
That is exactly what the eMac is for. A business needs a computer and montior, Apple just happens to sell an All-in-One package, right near the price point you are looking for.
Quote:
Excellent point about economy. It was bliss back then compared to now. Look at the 5 year AAPL stock. Wow! Remember when it was in the 60s? Of course, what a difference the last 6 months make! They went from 12.something to today's 23.something.
Heck, remember when it was up at 120 Then the split hit and it hovered around the 60s. Then Apple anounced there first loss in a few years, and it tumbled down to the 20s almost instantly. It dropped as low as 12 or something, and is now starting to climb back up the latter.
I really think os x 10.4 needs bundled virtual pc.
NO!!! There is no way this should happen. That is like giving up and admitting that an Apple isn't as capable as a PeeCee, which is entirely untrue. That would be a very bad idea. Every program that is available for a PeeCee is available for a Mac, if not an equivalent program is.
I may be a total nut, but I think the eMac is really the key to the marketshare dilemma.
But as it is now, it's yesterday's computer and everyone knows it.
Apple needs to strip out the 17" CRT and replace it with the 15" widescreen used in the iMac and the AiBook.
Economies of scale will help push the price downward, so hopefully the eMac would stay at $799. Remember, a 15" LCD has a 16" CRT's area.
This way, the product looks like it has a future, keeps a low price, still is an unexpandable AIO, and doesn't compete with the iMac on looks/screen size or the G5 for expandibility.
Schools would still buy it, big time.
I don't know if this is feasible cost-wise now, but hopefully by early next year.
I'm not sure the removal of the swing arm would reduce the price by that much. In essence, that's what an LCD eMac would be, just an iMac without the swing arm.
But lot's of businesses and schools use their existing monitors. Kinda makes paying for a monitor in an AIO useless. Kind of like having to buy a PC that's price is inflated to include Windows when most large corporations and schools buy volume licensing anyway. No, I think the headless is definately the way to go, since you cannot assume everyone will want a 17" CRT in all their computers. Not to mention, they are damned heavy to move around. Just release it Apple, and people will buy it big time. The eMac is dead...sales are dead...the iMac sales are heading in the same direction. Logically, the headless makes sense, if for nothing else sales! No one is buying into the AIO anymore.
Most people who buy a new pc buy the new box, and keep their old software. (Microsoft does an excellent job making sure their software is backward compatible)
When people by new software to replace the stuff they have down the road, they buy it to match the specs of their current computer. It helps to lessen the initial outlay of $$.
Virtual PC in the os could erve a similar function. Most people would rather use the new stuff, but they just want to be able to use old software as a stop gap. VPC could work like classic mode, but certain functions could be disabled to only run in 10. (like how Office 97 doesn't work in new windows xp computers)
1. Webbrowsing will default to os x
2. music and movies default to os x
3. email defaults to x
4. chat defaults to x
5. solitare and free cell can stay in windows mode
So using apples built-in apps would be the default. Once an Apple version of a product arrives to replace the windows version: that feature is turned off in windows mode, until there is no more reason to back to windows mode.
Corporations could gradually ease into os x, as could consumers, and the initialcost of the computer will decrease greatly.
(People would still buy word processing software because no one actually has the disk for office or the preloaded stuff)
you do know that more than half of apple's computer sales are AIO's
Quote:
Originally posted by jade
Why OS X needs Virtual PC...
[snip]
Most people who buy a new pc buy the new box, and keep their old software. (Microsoft does an excellent job making sure their software is backward compatible)
[snipperdesnip]
... (like how Office 97 doesn't work in new windows xp computers)
if microsoft isn't compatible with err... microsoft
Just get over wanting Apple's marketshare to jump to 10 or 15 % this year.
They dont need virtual PC ( as a bundle ), because as the number of users increases ( as it is doing ) the software barrier for new users decreases ( due to the potential for piracy ). My experience to date is that home users could care less about paying $100's for software when they can just copy it.
Apple certainly needs corporate penetration, but i think that will come from the top down, ie: servers, the xServe really is a good general purpose solution, and they are going to sneak into it departments ( Apple should be giving away eval units ), and once they do they will multiply.
The net result, in 5 years Apple will be strong in terms of market share.
Comments
Originally posted by johnq
I don't care if grandmom and some mall rats can't afford Macs. Let them eat cake and buy a cheapo-PC. This is a myth anyway. Macs are priced appropriately. Just because the rest of the PC industry undercuts each other while fighting for markeshare, doesn't mean Macs are overpriced. PC buyers are just spoiled that some companies would rather run themselves into bankruptcy than charge the appropriate value for their products.
Well spoken!
Originally posted by johnq
Apple only needs to be profitable. The will do so by maintaining high quality standards. Marketshare simply doesn't matter as long as they are profitable.
As long as Jobs is in charge, it matters, because he is passionate about marketshare. Look at just about every MacWorld in years past. That % thing was always mentioned. You really think he's doing it for grins?
Originally posted by johnq
I have utterly no desire to see them whore out the hardware to 3rd parties or to jump into the fray by cutting their prices below what makes sense for them just to temporarily gain marketshare.
You don't think Apple losing marketshare in corporations and education matters, huh? That is some pretty bizarre thinking. Why are corporations not buying Macs? Because they don't integrate in Windows worlds? No, they do. Because they are unfamiliar with Macs? Maybe but that is hardly a reason to not look at something. Price? Bingo! Who wants to buy, for example, 100 Macs at $1299 a piece when they can buy 100 {fill-in-your-PC-brand} for $699. That comes to $600 difference per machine and, ahem, a $60,000 difference total. Price does matter.
Originally posted by johnq
I don't care if grandmom and some mall rats can't afford Macs. Let them eat cake and buy a cheapo-PC. This is a myth anyway. Macs are priced appropriately.
That's a crock of crap! Many people can't afford $699 PCs but they get them. Know why? Because they need them at home and for their kids education. Why alienate ANY sector that is willing to buy your products? Especially, incidentally, when it is a very large number of prospective buyers!
Originally posted by kupan787
Not just that, but the US economy was much better in 99/00 (dot com erra).
Excellent point about economy. It was bliss back then compared to now. Look at the 5 year AAPL stock. Wow! Remember when it was in the 60s? Of course, what a difference the last 6 months make! They went from 12.something to today's 23.something.
Originally posted by kupan787
The eMac is sitting at $799 now, which is pretty good. It is the no-frills iMac. What would you want different?
Headless. Lose the damn CRT already! Seriously, give businesses and education a pizza box mac with limited expandability. Basically a cheap cube, but with 1 pci slot, and a replaceable HD and Video board. Just don't give us the brick-on-a-leash power supply. Those suck!
Originally posted by Rhumgod
You don't think Apple losing marketshare in corporations and education matters, huh? That is some pretty bizarre thinking. Why are corporations not buying Macs? Because they don't integrate in Windows worlds? No, they do. Because they are unfamiliar with Macs? Maybe but that is hardly a reason to not look at something. Price? Bingo! Who wants to buy, for example, 100 Macs at $1299 a piece when they can buy 100 {fill-in-your-PC-brand} for $699. That comes to $600 difference per machine and, ahem, a $60,000 difference total. Price does matter.
That is exactly what the eMac is for. A business needs a computer and montior, Apple just happens to sell an All-in-One package, right near the price point you are looking for.
Excellent point about economy. It was bliss back then compared to now. Look at the 5 year AAPL stock. Wow! Remember when it was in the 60s? Of course, what a difference the last 6 months make! They went from 12.something to today's 23.something.
Heck, remember when it was up at 120
Originally posted by jade
I really think os x 10.4 needs bundled virtual pc.
NO!!! There is no way this should happen. That is like giving up and admitting that an Apple isn't as capable as a PeeCee, which is entirely untrue. That would be a very bad idea. Every program that is available for a PeeCee is available for a Mac, if not an equivalent program is.
But as it is now, it's yesterday's computer and everyone knows it.
Apple needs to strip out the 17" CRT and replace it with the 15" widescreen used in the iMac and the AiBook.
Economies of scale will help push the price downward, so hopefully the eMac would stay at $799. Remember, a 15" LCD has a 16" CRT's area.
This way, the product looks like it has a future, keeps a low price, still is an unexpandable AIO, and doesn't compete with the iMac on looks/screen size or the G5 for expandibility.
Schools would still buy it, big time.
I don't know if this is feasible cost-wise now, but hopefully by early next year.
The eMac would obviously retain the AIO rounded white case which would make it cheaper to build and not compete with the mid-level iMac.
I was just being humorous.
I'm not sure the removal of the swing arm would reduce the price by that much. In essence, that's what an LCD eMac would be, just an iMac without the swing arm.
It will lower the cost of entry to a new mac.
Most people who buy a new pc buy the new box, and keep their old software. (Microsoft does an excellent job making sure their software is backward compatible)
When people by new software to replace the stuff they have down the road, they buy it to match the specs of their current computer. It helps to lessen the initial outlay of $$.
Virtual PC in the os could erve a similar function. Most people would rather use the new stuff, but they just want to be able to use old software as a stop gap. VPC could work like classic mode, but certain functions could be disabled to only run in 10. (like how Office 97 doesn't work in new windows xp computers)
1. Webbrowsing will default to os x
2. music and movies default to os x
3. email defaults to x
4. chat defaults to x
5. solitare and free cell can stay in windows mode
So using apples built-in apps would be the default. Once an Apple version of a product arrives to replace the windows version: that feature is turned off in windows mode, until there is no more reason to back to windows mode.
Corporations could gradually ease into os x, as could consumers, and the initialcost of the computer will decrease greatly.
(People would still buy word processing software because no one actually has the disk for office or the preloaded stuff)
Bring back a cheap cube!!!!!
Originally posted by Rhumgod
No one is buying into the AIO anymore.
you do know that more than half of apple's computer sales are AIO's
Originally posted by jade
Why OS X needs Virtual PC...
[snip]
Most people who buy a new pc buy the new box, and keep their old software. (Microsoft does an excellent job making sure their software is backward compatible)
[snipperdesnip]
... (like how Office 97 doesn't work in new windows xp computers)
if microsoft isn't compatible with err... microsoft
why does osX need Virtual PC?
keep it simple
They dont need virtual PC ( as a bundle ), because as the number of users increases ( as it is doing ) the software barrier for new users decreases ( due to the potential for piracy ). My experience to date is that home users could care less about paying $100's for software when they can just copy it.
Apple certainly needs corporate penetration, but i think that will come from the top down, ie: servers, the xServe really is a good general purpose solution, and they are going to sneak into it departments ( Apple should be giving away eval units ), and once they do they will multiply.
The net result, in 5 years Apple will be strong in terms of market share.
what if apple bought out other emulator software made it os10native and sold it.
Originally posted by NOFEER
why can't apple start including solitaire like MS does
Because we've got chess!
Originally posted by gar
you do know that more than half of apple's computer sales are AIO's
does that include laptops
Originally posted by NOFEER
my wife doesn't play chess, is there a cheap solitaire program for the mac osx
I used to have a free one serch for it at versiontracker.com