Um, no, commodity, in the economic sense, has a pretty specific meaning. From here:
Quote:
The financial term commodity is defined as a physical substance, such as food, grains, a and metals, which is interchangeable with other product of the same type, and which investors buy or sell, usually through future contracts.
i.e. something which typically doesn't have a brand associated with it. appliances and simple entertainment devices most definitely do NOT fall into this category... and neither do computers or iPods, for that matter. Since nobody is really using the term "commodity" in its true sense, but instead putting their own spin on it, I'd suggest just dropping the subject altogether.
[...]
Quote:
Like it or not, PCs are becoming more closed. Dells don't adhere to true ATX standards. UTX is coming, but that might fork things even further. Even enthusiast motherboards have fewer and fewer PCI slots to accomodate things like hefty video cards that would occupy the adjacent slot to an AGP slot anyway.
I'm not sure why you think this is important. PC Manufacturers have been making their own form factors for as long as there have been PCs. How is today any different?
Quote:
The consumer is asking for a no-nonsense, low-maintenance box that they never have to open and comes with everything. They aren't specifically asking for a drab SFF cube-shaped Shuttle-esque Mac.
And your source for this is...?
Nevermind.
Guys, at this point I think it's obvious that we're just retracking ground that's already been covered. I'd say just call it a draw, because nothing new is going to be covered here, and I don't think either side is going to give an inch.
Man it is getting heated in here. I think that both sides have valid points. The way I see it is that if Apple were doing everything right then they would have better market share than they currently do. The have good laptops, good pro desktops, and one of the best (if underpowered) AIO computers on the market. I think that we can all agree on that. However if Apple is going to grow market share then they need to move into new markets that they can't reach with their current offerings. This means a new form factor, be it a thin client backed by a blade server or a mini-tower/Cube/pizzabox or whatever computer that appeals to people who are not buying Macs due to what is offered in their price range. Yes there are other concerns such as compatability, which should be delt with in software (Works should be upgraded to recognize Word files ASAP after Microsoft comes out with a new version, and bring back MacLink as shipping software with all CPU's) not hardware. Educating potential customers would help, but it is not easy to do when all the "geeks" at the computer store know and own PC's and steer customers away from the Mac platform. Advertising could be better, especially when it comes to talking about entry prices on current Apple offerings. They could help this out by giving retailers the ability to actually have sale prices on Macs instead of locking them into Apples pricing structure.
As for the comments on graphics cards, I own a Cube and one of the main considerations in its purchase was the AGP slot for the GPU. Apple raised the bar for hardware with Quartz Extream, who is to say they wont do it again next year to support only GPU's with 64 or 128 MB of memory? Yes, this is an upgrade I plan on doing to my Cube, and soon (as well as a CPU upgrade to extend the life of the Cube for home use). Another consideration was the freedom of an external monitor. I have a 15" LCD now because that is all I could afford at the time. I plan on getting something larger in the near future as well. I like having that choice, and as a consumer that does come into my buying decisions, and I don't really consider myself a "geek".
That is what a commodity market is. Multiple vendors selling the same item and competing on price. Oil commodities. Grain commodities. Gold commodities. Rutabega commodities.
well there is your problem... EVERY market competes based on price...
but the thing about the PC market is that features come into play as well... not every maker has the same PC... (apple of course is not even in the same league based on the fact that it is not running "the standard" windows....)
no way you can call a cheap PC a commodity
mp3 players on the other hand are MUCH closer-regardless of the price...
i still stick with my post even if it doesn't adhere to a strict economic definition of a commodity (and i have taken 2 semesters of econ so far, macro and micro principles... just not really thinking in those terms right now)
and generally appliances ARE commodities... they are built to serve a small amount of functions and compete with each other on PRICE
and a fridge would fit into that category... at least the cheap ones...
oh and forget everything I just said... I agree with Gamblor...
Guys, at this point I think it's obvious that we're just retracking ground that's already been covered. I'd say just call it a draw, because nothing new is going to be covered here, and I don't think either side is going to give an inch.
Fair enough, but that means that you lose and I win
Kidding. I do agree with you on quite a bit of what you've said, but it is my belief that it's not the hardware, but software and general miseducation that is holding Apple back. I can see your argument and I don't think it's not without merit in some areas
[B]Um, no, commodity, in the economic sense, has a pretty specific meaning.
i.e. something which typically doesn't have a brand associated with it. appliances and simple entertainment devices most definitely do NOT fall into this category... and neither do computers or iPods, for that matter. Since nobody is really using the term "commodity" in its true sense, but instead putting their own spin on it, I'd suggest just dropping the subject altogether.
...well, honestly the reason most analysts call the computer market a "commodity" market is because the parts used to create them do basically fit the above description. Most people have no idea who made the motherboard, chipset, usb controller, firewire controller, etc. inside their machine. Computer vendors nowadays have become "assemblers" of "commodity" parts. Those parts can be interchanged. They generally are brandless. You can basically build a "generic" PC out of "generic" parts yourself.
The computer market has come to fit "commodity" better than just about any other non "raw material" market out there.
So, grant me a little leeway and be done with all this pedantry. (j/k)
...well, honestly the reason most analysts call the computer market a "commodity" market is because the parts used to create them do basically fit the above description. Most people have no idea who made the motherboard, chipset, usb controller, firewire controller, etc. inside their machine. Computer vendors nowadays have become "assemblers" of "commodity" parts. Those parts can be interchanged. They generally are brandless. You can basically build a "generic" PC out of "generic" parts yourself.
The parts are not the sum of the whole. You cannot expect the average customer to build a generic PC. You cannot easily jump into the PC market as a small OEM.
On the other hand, the portal music player market is saturated with little names like Archos, iRiver, Rio, DigitalWay, Frontier, Pogo, etc.
Small PC OEMs are having a bear of a time against Dell, HP and others. The poster Northgate works for Northgate, perhaps he can shed some light on the ups/downs of the OEM PC industry. Besides, I said PCs were becoming even more of a commodity than before, but you just skewed my comments to fit your reply.
I said:
Quote:
As low-end PCs become even more like commdity hardware than ever before they will become even more closed.
As there is little difference between the major brands now, what do you think they are going to do to differentiate themselves and sell their goods? They are going to branch out to fill the niches. They're going to want to sell you accessories catered to work best with their own products.
A product has to be useful in order to be a commodity. In the end, an Apple iPod is more useful than a WalMart PC.
So I point my browser to this site, then go up one level in the board hierarchy (to General Discussion), and what do I see? The next latest post in this group is from late October. The forums there appear to be on life support.
I'd say the Michael who posted this bit of "inside info" may be fishing for some hits.
I do agree with you on quite a bit of what you've said, but it is my belief that it's not the hardware, but software and general miseducation that is holding Apple back.
Why can't it be both? You believe software is a bigger problem, that's fine, but why does that exclude Apple's inability to provide competitive hardware across the line? I just don't see why it has to be an either or proposition.
I firmly believe that if Apple had hardware that was price/performance competitive, even limiting it to the models/form factors they've got now, they'd probably have double their marketshare. I point to the G5s as evidence. Until November when the dual 1.8GHz machine was introduced, the only machine that really competed on a price/performance basis was the top end machine, and by all accounts that machine sold more than both of its siblings combined. They had a grand total of ONE machine that truely competed with PC offerings at a similar price for half the quarter, and two machines that can compete for the remainder. It's looking like they'll double their marketshare for the quarter based on the strength of those two machines alone. Is it really that outlandish to think that they could get a big boost in sales simply by having competitive hardware across the board?
As far as the CSHB goes, Apple has had machine like it before in the form of LCs, the IIsi, and various Centris & Quadra machines. Many of those machines were best sellers for Apple, and they existed at a time when they competed directly with AIOs that Apple offered (like the Color Classic). Why can't they do it again? It all comes down to offering the consumer a reasonable number of choices. How could that possibly be a bad thing?
Why can't it be both? You believe software is a bigger problem, that's fine, but why does that exclude Apple's inability to provide competitive hardware across the line? I just don't see why it has to be an either or proposition.
I know that you firmly believe that. I firmly believe that hardware plays almost no role in it. I think that offering the CSHB would cannibalize PowerMac sales. That would be A Bad Thing? . I thought we agreed to disagree on this one?
I'd say the Michael who posted this bit of "inside info" may be fishing for some hits.
But I could be wrong...
As I stated at the top, I don't remember this site producing rumors of any kind in the past. Your hypothesis may be correct. Nonetheless, this thread seams to have taken on a life of its own. Maybe we need a title change...
I know that you firmly believe that. I firmly believe that hardware plays almost no role in it. I think that offering the CSHB would cannibalize PowerMac sales. That would be A Bad Thing? . I thought we agreed to disagree on this one?
Actually there is a really easy way to keep the cshb from cannablizing powermac sales: make it white not aluminum.
ibook g4 vs powerbook g4....do you think this wil kill powerbook slaes? no way... it just might hurt the models with combo drives. but for those that money is no object they will pick the product with the most cachet. The others shop for price.
A CHSB will not kill powermac sales because there will be more than enough new customers coming in to make up for the handful that jump to the cheaper box. A low price gets people in the door.
I sell computers too, and in my experience this is what happens. Person wants a computer. I show them an imac/emac. They say...I already have a screen...they look at g5/g4.....well starting at 1299 I can get a combo drive...but for $999 I can get an HP with DVD+R and use my monitor. Which product wins. All-in-ones are great for people who do not have a computer. But we are at the point where a good 60% of people already have one and are looking for upgrades.
But more importantly when it comes time to fix the computer it takes a lot more work to find someone to service a complicated imac,,,,than a tower. Even the most in experiences pc tech can figure out how to install ram or a cdin a tower...but give that guy an imac and he will probablly throw it out the window...and that means the imac cstomer will have to send their computer for apple for a few weeks for repair. With an imac, when it goes down you replace the whole thing,.....and for lots of people (even non geeks) that seems annoying and wasteful. (Seeing that CRTs can last 800 years and LCDs will stand up to 7 or so.)
I want an OS X computer between $799-1599 where I can pick my own screen... I would sell lots and lots of them!!!!
So let's forget about exisint apple users and look at potential new apple users.........they buy towers! And not $2000 ones. That is why apple is missing a huge chunk of the market.
For a lot of people once they find out they can use word on a mac....they are minimally concerned with compatability, but it is hard to crosss that hurdle when you have already been eliminated because of price/performance.
(in the pc world computers $1299 and up sstart with 120gb hard drives........)
Did you read this thread at all? Gamblor and I have pretty been over every possible point at least twice. I'm not going to respond anymore because frankly it's boring. Jade to read what I would have written in response reread this thread. Enjoy!
The parts are not the sum of the whole. You cannot expect the average customer to build a generic PC. You cannot easily jump into the PC market as a small OEM.
On the other hand, the portal music player market is saturated with little names like Archos, iRiver, Rio, DigitalWay, Frontier, Pogo, etc.
Small PC OEMs are having a bear of a time against Dell, HP and others. The poster Northgate works for Northgate, perhaps he can shed some light on the ups/downs of the OEM PC industry. Besides, I said PCs were becoming even more of a commodity than before, but you just skewed my comments to fit your reply.
I said:
As there is little difference between the major brands now, what do you think they are going to do to differentiate themselves and sell their goods? They are going to branch out to fill the niches. They're going to want to sell you accessories catered to work best with their own products.
A product has to be useful in order to be a commodity. In the end, an Apple iPod is more useful than a WalMart PC.
...I think you are missing some key information. Here is why. In my time, I've seen 3 custom box builders rise from small independents to large corporations; Compaq, Gateway, and Dell. It is one of the reasons IBM decided to get out the PC market, its a commodity market.
Not to mention there are literally tens of thousands of mom and pop stores around the country building custom PCs. And, they actually have an advantage over the big companies because they move to market faster with hardware. The fastest mobo with the newest technologies are not OEM parts, they are custom market boards from Tyan, Abit, Asus, Gigabyte, Shuttle, etc. And they only need a few of the newest chips to sell, they don't have to wait for 100,000 to be in inventory before they start moving boxes out the door. How can they compete? The parts are commodity items.
Besides that, look at comapnies like AlienWare (which was being sold in BestBuy) and Falcon that do very well building custom PCs. Hell, AlienWare was using Chieftec off the shelf cases. How can they all compete? Becasue the parts are commodity items.
And, BTW, yes the average computer user could easily build a custom box themselves. If they can assemble a vacuum cleaner from Wal-Mart they can put together a PC. It requires putting in a couple dozen screws and plugging in a 8 or 9 cables. Its not exactly rocket science. I have more faith in the avergae Joe than you, I guess.
This is all well and good but why would someone be running Autocad (or any professional 3D app for that matter) on a consumer grade All In One? Lets face it Apple has the G5 towers to serve the needs of the professionals.
On the other hand this does not mean that I'm happy about Apples tendency to put GPU's into their consumer machines that are three or more revisions old. The nature of the machines wether IMac or Headless box points to a GPU integrated onto the logic board. The trick is to install a GPU and the complementing memory that is reasonably state of the art when the machine hits the market. How we get Apple to do this is an interesting question.
Apple has a good rep for building machine that are durable and last for a while. Part of that comes the highly integrated mother boards they produce. It is a reasonable trade off for the All in One market and the small form factor market to have the GPU soldered in.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Gamblor
There are a few other apps that benefit from 3D accelleration, as well. On the PC side, AutoCAD & ESRI's 3D Analyst are two examples that immediately come to mind. Depending on how complex the data is, a high end consumer 3D card may provide a significant boost in performance over what would be built in to the motherboard in an AIO. There are other apps, too, that have 3D modules that would benefit from a "game" card-- IDL & MathCAD type programs come to mind.
The use of these cards is not all limited to games and 3D content creation. There are a lot of other apps that would benefit as well.
Mr. Jobs spends most of his waking hours ensuring that the Apple brand never ever becomes associated with anything that could be described as a commodity.
Mr. Jobs spends most of his waking hours ensuring that the Apple brand never ever becomes associated with anything that could be described as a commodity.
....it should read "Mr. Jobs spends most of his waking hours fooling everyone into believing that the Apple brand never ever becomes associated with anything that could be described as a commodity."
Apple uses all the same parts that Dell uses. Even the same motherboard manufacturer. Hell, Apple doesn't even build most of its products, they are outsourced to Taiwan to companies like Quanta that build other brands too.
Apple pretty much abandoned its ambition to create new standards in hardware. They abandon Nubus, SCSI, and their non-standrad RAM requirements. Why? Cuz commodity parts are cheaper, naturally, even if they aren't technically superior.
Apple innovates in software, not hardware (excepting of course FireWire and WiFi tech which they single handedly petitioned the FCC for the opening of the spectrum to public use).
Their software kicks ass, always has. Its 100% of Apple's worth. Their hardware is built from the same parts everyone else uses. I hope they eventually broaden the market for their software. Cocoa rocks. Its a super powerful RAD kit. All their iApps are top notch. Even Apple themselves have admitted that they are moving more towards being a software centered company.
Gamblor, I wouldn't listen to the Apple 'grid' analites. The 'grid' is history. As anybody who has been paying attention for the last few years would know. (Gosh, who'd a thunk Apple would have 3, rather than 2(!) Powerbooks in their Powerbook line!? It's SO confusing! Apple shouldn't have the affordable 12inch Powerbook because it affects sales of the 17 inch Powerbook and hampers Apple's ability to make itself into a smaller niche. Or tower under 1K? Or G4 and G5 towers just to confuse Apple buyers. Or the pending switch to a 'two-tier' iPod range? Or 12inch and 14 inch iBook screen sizes...or...gasp, 3(!!!) screen sizes for your iMac 2? Why add a 20 inch screen? It would only cause confusion and cost too much...or why do a 17 inch iMac(eMac) because it would break somebody's wrist from carrying it around all day... Or better still, why not have two overlapping lines of overpriced AIOs, eh? (iMac/eMac...) Because that would make more sense than offering a little bit of choice ie a range of cheap consumer towers to complement a cheap range of consumer AIOs? And there's always the danger that pro users might confuse the X-serve and PowerMac range...or Wintel users might confuse Apple's Mac OS with their new Unix OS...or the iPod with a PDA...)
I'm sorry folks. I can't help speaking crap.
Ok, minor history lesson here folks. Everyone here remembers the days where Amelio had close to 20 + different products, and you couldn't distinguish between any of them?? Could you tell the difference between the PowerMac 8600 or 9600 from the title?? Hell no.
Now, I think what we are talking about is an extension of the grid. In its heart, we still have the main grid, plus a couple of newcomers. We still have the iMac and the iBook. We have the PowerMac and the PowerBook. We also now have the eMac for Education, and the Xserve for our server needs.
However, each one has different configurations. Would you be able to tell the difference between the 14" iBook versus the 12.1" PowerBook? Yes. Why? Not because of the size, but because of the name. That is what Apple created when they did that grid; it built name recognition. Ask anyone if they know what an iMac is. I garantee that the answer is "Yes." Love it or hate it, they still know WHAT it is.
Sorry, back to point. I think that the main debate on how to increase market share is actually a little combination of both. We are still fighting the issue with the Myth. I know that I am right now with some people in my work. "Can your Mac actually read my Excel document??" "Can you connect to our server??" etc etc etc. Apple needs to do a better job at educating the public. Commercial, print, and radio ads are needed. A strong presence in the public's eye will help in these regards.
Then you have the whole Price/Performance issue. Again, Apple needs to educate, as well as adapt. A 1k Tower, they have to enter into this area. As well as make some of their consumer products cheaper. Bring the iBook back below 1k, preferably to the $899 mark. iMac needs to be around $999 including SuperDrive. Powerbook is actually right where it needs to be.
Remember, choice and different configurations does not equal confusion. Confusion happens when you have now way to distinguish one product from the other. Oh, one other final test for you guys. Don't use Google to find this out, either. Which is the better PC: The Dell Dimension 8300 or the Gateway 510X??
I want to make one minor point, as a Cube owner. I bought the Cube, not because it was cheap (it wasn't), not because it was expandable (it's kind of expandable, but not much), not because it was silent (I have a hearing loss anyway), not because I could use any monitor (altho I liked that), but because it was small.
I haven't bought a PowerMac, not because it's too expensive, not because it only has one optical drive, not because 64-bit OSs are not available yet, or anything like that, but simply because it's too big.
Really, $1799 isn't too much money for a good computer. Refurbs are available for as little as $1399. But the tower is enormous! And if you get a single processor, a lot of that space is empty, permanently wasted, because the machine is not upgradable.
But as mentioned earlier, I'm a geek, I have no idea what would sell or not. Amorph pointed out in another thread that the top-selling Mac right now is the 17" iMac - it's outselling the G5, even with its antique G4 processor.
Comments
The financial term commodity is defined as a physical substance, such as food, grains, a and metals, which is interchangeable with other product of the same type, and which investors buy or sell, usually through future contracts.
i.e. something which typically doesn't have a brand associated with it. appliances and simple entertainment devices most definitely do NOT fall into this category... and neither do computers or iPods, for that matter. Since nobody is really using the term "commodity" in its true sense, but instead putting their own spin on it, I'd suggest just dropping the subject altogether.
[...]
Like it or not, PCs are becoming more closed. Dells don't adhere to true ATX standards. UTX is coming, but that might fork things even further. Even enthusiast motherboards have fewer and fewer PCI slots to accomodate things like hefty video cards that would occupy the adjacent slot to an AGP slot anyway.
I'm not sure why you think this is important. PC Manufacturers have been making their own form factors for as long as there have been PCs. How is today any different?
The consumer is asking for a no-nonsense, low-maintenance box that they never have to open and comes with everything. They aren't specifically asking for a drab SFF cube-shaped Shuttle-esque Mac.
And your source for this is...?
Nevermind.
Guys, at this point I think it's obvious that we're just retracking ground that's already been covered. I'd say just call it a draw, because nothing new is going to be covered here, and I don't think either side is going to give an inch.
As for the comments on graphics cards, I own a Cube and one of the main considerations in its purchase was the AGP slot for the GPU. Apple raised the bar for hardware with Quartz Extream, who is to say they wont do it again next year to support only GPU's with 64 or 128 MB of memory? Yes, this is an upgrade I plan on doing to my Cube, and soon (as well as a CPU upgrade to extend the life of the Cube for home use). Another consideration was the freedom of an external monitor. I have a 15" LCD now because that is all I could afford at the time. I plan on getting something larger in the near future as well. I like having that choice, and as a consumer that does come into my buying decisions, and I don't really consider myself a "geek".
Originally posted by mooseman
That is what a commodity market is. Multiple vendors selling the same item and competing on price. Oil commodities. Grain commodities. Gold commodities. Rutabega commodities.
well there is your problem... EVERY market competes based on price...
but the thing about the PC market is that features come into play as well... not every maker has the same PC... (apple of course is not even in the same league based on the fact that it is not running "the standard" windows....)
no way you can call a cheap PC a commodity
mp3 players on the other hand are MUCH closer-regardless of the price...
i still stick with my post even if it doesn't adhere to a strict economic definition of a commodity (and i have taken 2 semesters of econ so far, macro and micro principles... just not really thinking in those terms right now)
and generally appliances ARE commodities... they are built to serve a small amount of functions and compete with each other on PRICE
and a fridge would fit into that category... at least the cheap ones...
oh and forget everything I just said... I agree with Gamblor...
but I'm still right
Originally posted by Gamblor
Guys, at this point I think it's obvious that we're just retracking ground that's already been covered. I'd say just call it a draw, because nothing new is going to be covered here, and I don't think either side is going to give an inch.
Fair enough, but that means that you lose and I win
Kidding. I do agree with you on quite a bit of what you've said, but it is my belief that it's not the hardware, but software and general miseducation that is holding Apple back. I can see your argument and I don't think it's not without merit in some areas
Originally posted by Gamblor
[B]Um, no, commodity, in the economic sense, has a pretty specific meaning.
i.e. something which typically doesn't have a brand associated with it. appliances and simple entertainment devices most definitely do NOT fall into this category... and neither do computers or iPods, for that matter. Since nobody is really using the term "commodity" in its true sense, but instead putting their own spin on it, I'd suggest just dropping the subject altogether.
...well, honestly the reason most analysts call the computer market a "commodity" market is because the parts used to create them do basically fit the above description. Most people have no idea who made the motherboard, chipset, usb controller, firewire controller, etc. inside their machine. Computer vendors nowadays have become "assemblers" of "commodity" parts. Those parts can be interchanged. They generally are brandless. You can basically build a "generic" PC out of "generic" parts yourself.
The computer market has come to fit "commodity" better than just about any other non "raw material" market out there.
So, grant me a little leeway and be done with all this pedantry. (j/k)
Originally posted by mooseman
...well, honestly the reason most analysts call the computer market a "commodity" market is because the parts used to create them do basically fit the above description. Most people have no idea who made the motherboard, chipset, usb controller, firewire controller, etc. inside their machine. Computer vendors nowadays have become "assemblers" of "commodity" parts. Those parts can be interchanged. They generally are brandless. You can basically build a "generic" PC out of "generic" parts yourself.
The parts are not the sum of the whole. You cannot expect the average customer to build a generic PC. You cannot easily jump into the PC market as a small OEM.
On the other hand, the portal music player market is saturated with little names like Archos, iRiver, Rio, DigitalWay, Frontier, Pogo, etc.
Small PC OEMs are having a bear of a time against Dell, HP and others. The poster Northgate works for Northgate, perhaps he can shed some light on the ups/downs of the OEM PC industry. Besides, I said PCs were becoming even more of a commodity than before, but you just skewed my comments to fit your reply.
I said:
As low-end PCs become even more like commdity hardware than ever before they will become even more closed.
As there is little difference between the major brands now, what do you think they are going to do to differentiate themselves and sell their goods? They are going to branch out to fill the niches. They're going to want to sell you accessories catered to work best with their own products.
A product has to be useful in order to be a commodity. In the end, an Apple iPod is more useful than a WalMart PC.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
http://macinchat.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s...81&m=529008865
So I point my browser to this site, then go up one level in the board hierarchy (to General Discussion), and what do I see? The next latest post in this group is from late October. The forums there appear to be on life support.
I'd say the Michael who posted this bit of "inside info" may be fishing for some hits.
But I could be wrong...
I do agree with you on quite a bit of what you've said, but it is my belief that it's not the hardware, but software and general miseducation that is holding Apple back.
Why can't it be both? You believe software is a bigger problem, that's fine, but why does that exclude Apple's inability to provide competitive hardware across the line? I just don't see why it has to be an either or proposition.
I firmly believe that if Apple had hardware that was price/performance competitive, even limiting it to the models/form factors they've got now, they'd probably have double their marketshare. I point to the G5s as evidence. Until November when the dual 1.8GHz machine was introduced, the only machine that really competed on a price/performance basis was the top end machine, and by all accounts that machine sold more than both of its siblings combined. They had a grand total of ONE machine that truely competed with PC offerings at a similar price for half the quarter, and two machines that can compete for the remainder. It's looking like they'll double their marketshare for the quarter based on the strength of those two machines alone. Is it really that outlandish to think that they could get a big boost in sales simply by having competitive hardware across the board?
As far as the CSHB goes, Apple has had machine like it before in the form of LCs, the IIsi, and various Centris & Quadra machines. Many of those machines were best sellers for Apple, and they existed at a time when they competed directly with AIOs that Apple offered (like the Color Classic). Why can't they do it again? It all comes down to offering the consumer a reasonable number of choices. How could that possibly be a bad thing?
Originally posted by Gamblor
Why can't it be both? You believe software is a bigger problem, that's fine, but why does that exclude Apple's inability to provide competitive hardware across the line? I just don't see why it has to be an either or proposition.
I know that you firmly believe that. I firmly believe that hardware plays almost no role in it. I think that offering the CSHB would cannibalize PowerMac sales. That would be A Bad Thing? . I thought we agreed to disagree on this one?
Originally posted by LudwigVan
I'd say the Michael who posted this bit of "inside info" may be fishing for some hits.
But I could be wrong...
As I stated at the top, I don't remember this site producing rumors of any kind in the past. Your hypothesis may be correct. Nonetheless, this thread seams to have taken on a life of its own. Maybe we need a title change...
Originally posted by Gamblor
Well, if you'd let me get in the last pithy reply...
It's all yours
Originally posted by HOM
I know that you firmly believe that. I firmly believe that hardware plays almost no role in it. I think that offering the CSHB would cannibalize PowerMac sales. That would be A Bad Thing? . I thought we agreed to disagree on this one?
Actually there is a really easy way to keep the cshb from cannablizing powermac sales: make it white not aluminum.
ibook g4 vs powerbook g4....do you think this wil kill powerbook slaes? no way... it just might hurt the models with combo drives. but for those that money is no object they will pick the product with the most cachet. The others shop for price.
A CHSB will not kill powermac sales because there will be more than enough new customers coming in to make up for the handful that jump to the cheaper box. A low price gets people in the door.
I sell computers too, and in my experience this is what happens. Person wants a computer. I show them an imac/emac. They say...I already have a screen...they look at g5/g4.....well starting at 1299 I can get a combo drive...but for $999 I can get an HP with DVD+R and use my monitor. Which product wins. All-in-ones are great for people who do not have a computer. But we are at the point where a good 60% of people already have one and are looking for upgrades.
But more importantly when it comes time to fix the computer it takes a lot more work to find someone to service a complicated imac,,,,than a tower. Even the most in experiences pc tech can figure out how to install ram or a cdin a tower...but give that guy an imac and he will probablly throw it out the window...and that means the imac cstomer will have to send their computer for apple for a few weeks for repair. With an imac, when it goes down you replace the whole thing,.....and for lots of people (even non geeks) that seems annoying and wasteful. (Seeing that CRTs can last 800 years and LCDs will stand up to 7 or so.)
I want an OS X computer between $799-1599 where I can pick my own screen... I would sell lots and lots of them!!!!
So let's forget about exisint apple users and look at potential new apple users.........they buy towers! And not $2000 ones. That is why apple is missing a huge chunk of the market.
For a lot of people once they find out they can use word on a mac....they are minimally concerned with compatability, but it is hard to crosss that hurdle when you have already been eliminated because of price/performance.
(in the pc world computers $1299 and up sstart with 120gb hard drives........)
Originally posted by Eugene
The parts are not the sum of the whole. You cannot expect the average customer to build a generic PC. You cannot easily jump into the PC market as a small OEM.
On the other hand, the portal music player market is saturated with little names like Archos, iRiver, Rio, DigitalWay, Frontier, Pogo, etc.
Small PC OEMs are having a bear of a time against Dell, HP and others. The poster Northgate works for Northgate, perhaps he can shed some light on the ups/downs of the OEM PC industry. Besides, I said PCs were becoming even more of a commodity than before, but you just skewed my comments to fit your reply.
I said:
As there is little difference between the major brands now, what do you think they are going to do to differentiate themselves and sell their goods? They are going to branch out to fill the niches. They're going to want to sell you accessories catered to work best with their own products.
A product has to be useful in order to be a commodity. In the end, an Apple iPod is more useful than a WalMart PC.
...I think you are missing some key information. Here is why. In my time, I've seen 3 custom box builders rise from small independents to large corporations; Compaq, Gateway, and Dell. It is one of the reasons IBM decided to get out the PC market, its a commodity market.
Not to mention there are literally tens of thousands of mom and pop stores around the country building custom PCs. And, they actually have an advantage over the big companies because they move to market faster with hardware. The fastest mobo with the newest technologies are not OEM parts, they are custom market boards from Tyan, Abit, Asus, Gigabyte, Shuttle, etc. And they only need a few of the newest chips to sell, they don't have to wait for 100,000 to be in inventory before they start moving boxes out the door. How can they compete? The parts are commodity items.
Besides that, look at comapnies like AlienWare (which was being sold in BestBuy) and Falcon that do very well building custom PCs. Hell, AlienWare was using Chieftec off the shelf cases. How can they all compete? Becasue the parts are commodity items.
And, BTW, yes the average computer user could easily build a custom box themselves. If they can assemble a vacuum cleaner from Wal-Mart they can put together a PC. It requires putting in a couple dozen screws and plugging in a 8 or 9 cables. Its not exactly rocket science. I have more faith in the avergae Joe than you, I guess.
On the other hand this does not mean that I'm happy about Apples tendency to put GPU's into their consumer machines that are three or more revisions old. The nature of the machines wether IMac or Headless box points to a GPU integrated onto the logic board. The trick is to install a GPU and the complementing memory that is reasonably state of the art when the machine hits the market. How we get Apple to do this is an interesting question.
Apple has a good rep for building machine that are durable and last for a while. Part of that comes the highly integrated mother boards they produce. It is a reasonable trade off for the All in One market and the small form factor market to have the GPU soldered in.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by Gamblor
There are a few other apps that benefit from 3D accelleration, as well. On the PC side, AutoCAD & ESRI's 3D Analyst are two examples that immediately come to mind. Depending on how complex the data is, a high end consumer 3D card may provide a significant boost in performance over what would be built in to the motherboard in an AIO. There are other apps, too, that have 3D modules that would benefit from a "game" card-- IDL & MathCAD type programs come to mind.
The use of these cards is not all limited to games and 3D content creation. There are a lot of other apps that would benefit as well.
Originally posted by vinney57
Mr. Jobs spends most of his waking hours ensuring that the Apple brand never ever becomes associated with anything that could be described as a commodity.
....it should read "Mr. Jobs spends most of his waking hours fooling everyone into believing that the Apple brand never ever becomes associated with anything that could be described as a commodity."
Apple uses all the same parts that Dell uses. Even the same motherboard manufacturer. Hell, Apple doesn't even build most of its products, they are outsourced to Taiwan to companies like Quanta that build other brands too.
Apple pretty much abandoned its ambition to create new standards in hardware. They abandon Nubus, SCSI, and their non-standrad RAM requirements. Why? Cuz commodity parts are cheaper, naturally, even if they aren't technically superior.
Apple innovates in software, not hardware (excepting of course FireWire and WiFi tech which they single handedly petitioned the FCC for the opening of the spectrum to public use).
Their software kicks ass, always has. Its 100% of Apple's worth. Their hardware is built from the same parts everyone else uses. I hope they eventually broaden the market for their software. Cocoa rocks. Its a super powerful RAD kit. All their iApps are top notch. Even Apple themselves have admitted that they are moving more towards being a software centered company.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Gamblor, I wouldn't listen to the Apple 'grid' analites. The 'grid' is history. As anybody who has been paying attention for the last few years would know. (Gosh, who'd a thunk Apple would have 3, rather than 2(!) Powerbooks in their Powerbook line!? It's SO confusing! Apple shouldn't have the affordable 12inch Powerbook because it affects sales of the 17 inch Powerbook and hampers Apple's ability to make itself into a smaller niche. Or tower under 1K? Or G4 and G5 towers just to confuse Apple buyers. Or the pending switch to a 'two-tier' iPod range? Or 12inch and 14 inch iBook screen sizes...or...gasp, 3(!!!) screen sizes for your iMac 2? Why add a 20 inch screen? It would only cause confusion and cost too much...or why do a 17 inch iMac(eMac) because it would break somebody's wrist from carrying it around all day... Or better still, why not have two overlapping lines of overpriced AIOs, eh? (iMac/eMac...) Because that would make more sense than offering a little bit of choice ie a range of cheap consumer towers to complement a cheap range of consumer AIOs? And there's always the danger that pro users might confuse the X-serve and PowerMac range...or Wintel users might confuse Apple's Mac OS with their new Unix OS...or the iPod with a PDA...)
I'm sorry folks. I can't help speaking crap.
Ok, minor history lesson here folks. Everyone here remembers the days where Amelio had close to 20 + different products, and you couldn't distinguish between any of them?? Could you tell the difference between the PowerMac 8600 or 9600 from the title?? Hell no.
Now, I think what we are talking about is an extension of the grid. In its heart, we still have the main grid, plus a couple of newcomers. We still have the iMac and the iBook. We have the PowerMac and the PowerBook. We also now have the eMac for Education, and the Xserve for our server needs.
However, each one has different configurations. Would you be able to tell the difference between the 14" iBook versus the 12.1" PowerBook? Yes. Why? Not because of the size, but because of the name. That is what Apple created when they did that grid; it built name recognition. Ask anyone if they know what an iMac is. I garantee that the answer is "Yes." Love it or hate it, they still know WHAT it is.
Sorry, back to point. I think that the main debate on how to increase market share is actually a little combination of both. We are still fighting the issue with the Myth. I know that I am right now with some people in my work. "Can your Mac actually read my Excel document??" "Can you connect to our server??" etc etc etc. Apple needs to do a better job at educating the public. Commercial, print, and radio ads are needed. A strong presence in the public's eye will help in these regards.
Then you have the whole Price/Performance issue. Again, Apple needs to educate, as well as adapt. A 1k Tower, they have to enter into this area. As well as make some of their consumer products cheaper. Bring the iBook back below 1k, preferably to the $899 mark. iMac needs to be around $999 including SuperDrive. Powerbook is actually right where it needs to be.
Remember, choice and different configurations does not equal confusion. Confusion happens when you have now way to distinguish one product from the other. Oh, one other final test for you guys. Don't use Google to find this out, either. Which is the better PC: The Dell Dimension 8300 or the Gateway 510X??
See my point?
I haven't bought a PowerMac, not because it's too expensive, not because it only has one optical drive, not because 64-bit OSs are not available yet, or anything like that, but simply because it's too big.
Really, $1799 isn't too much money for a good computer. Refurbs are available for as little as $1399. But the tower is enormous! And if you get a single processor, a lot of that space is empty, permanently wasted, because the machine is not upgradable.
But as mentioned earlier, I'm a geek, I have no idea what would sell or not. Amorph pointed out in another thread that the top-selling Mac right now is the 17" iMac - it's outselling the G5, even with its antique G4 processor.