Apple at all-time low market share

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 100
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Well, the coming CoreMedia (Audio, Image, Video) technologies along with these new GPUs and other fat-bandwidth hardware are bringing real-time compositing and editing to a Mac near you, so we're getting pretty close to what you're talking about.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 82 of 100
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    said it before and i will say it again:



    Prices in ~1995

    pc flat desktop or tower w/ display =~$2000

    mac flat desktop or tower w/ display =~$2000



    today

    Decent spec name brand pc tower with monitor =~$799-$1100

    entry level apple tower and monitor 1599+1299=~$2900



    do the math, most consumers dont understand the benifits of Mac, and god knows the apple marketing department is makeing sure that osx remains apples little secret so there, look at the numbers.



    And dont give me this "iMac fills the gap!" crap. people want towers and displays seprate, look at gateway, how long would they exist if the profile was the only line of consumer producs that they offered?



    (and dont get me started on the emac...great for education but that is pretty much it)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 83 of 100
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    Luckily, I almost couldn't care about Apple's desktop line. Notebooks are the hot sellers right now. Their focus should continue to go to them. Not that their desktops couldn't use some bumps, but... I don't care



    And, while it doesn't help that much, there's absolutely zero requirement that a person has to buy a Cinema Display with a PM. A $300 17" LCD could just as much go into that equation --> $1599 + $300 = $1899.



    Gateway's mode of selling towers/displays with razor thin margins has them hanging on a thread right now. Their formula so far has garnered them negative profits for the last 3 years, soon to be 4 (They may have had one or two quarters with a small profit during that timespan, but it was never sustained).



    HP's operating margin on their computers is hanging around 1-1.5% IIRC... but they can afford to do it because of their ridiculously huge and profitable printing/imaging division. IBM's sold their PC business.



    It would be a HUGE risk for Apple to lower prices on the hope of marginal increases in unit sales.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 84 of 100
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MCQ



    And, while it doesn't help that much, there's absolutely zero requirement that a person has to buy a Cinema Display with a PM. A $300 17" LCD could just as much go into that equation --> $1599 + $300 = $1899.





    But people want a one stop solution, apple dropped the ball by not offering a 17 inch flat pannel at ~249-299



    And the price points, FTLOG, put the low end sp g5 in a slightly smaller encloseure (unless volume priceing makes the big one cheaper) and sell it for 999! monitor sold seperately and yes this could be profitable - imac g5 from 1300, ibook g4 from 999? there is no need for a pricey lcd build in for a lower end midtower! so yes, they could do it for 999!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 85 of 100
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    But people want a one stop solution, apple dropped the ball by not offering a 17 inch flat pannel at ~249-299



    And the price points, FTLOG, put the low end sp g5 in a slightly smaller encloseure (unless volume priceing makes the big one cheaper) and sell it for 999! monitor sold seperately and yes this could be profitable - imac g5 from 1100, ibook g4 from 999? there is no need for a pricey lcd build in for a lower end midtower! so yes, they could do it for 999!




    The new iCheap line;



    For the Apple dreamer on a PC budget.



    Free fuzzy desktop thingy with every order (While supplies last)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 86 of 100
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Relic

    The new iCheap line;



    For the Apple dreamer on a PC budget.



    Free fuzzy desktop thingy with every order (While supplies last)




    So macs should only be for rich pointy headed elitists?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 87 of 100
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    So macs should only be for rich pointy headed elitists?



    Appears that way.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 88 of 100
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    My take:



    Apple's in transition again, just like the move to PowerPC or OS X.

    This time, however, they're taking over the retail chain.



    In order to manage the situation and not end up with thousands of lawsuits on their hands, they are treading slowly and carefully. This transition will take years.



    But for Apple to have the pricing flexibility and consumer awareness many are asking for in this thread, they have to handle the retail equation themselves.



    It's the only way for them to ever sell a $500 computer and make money.



    In five years, when there's closer to 700 Apple Stores across North America, things will begin to gel in market share.



    Until then, they'll remain a boutique supplier.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 89 of 100
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    My take:



    Apple's in transition again, just like the move to PowerPC or OS X.

    This time, however, they're taking over the retail chain.



    In order to manage the situation and not end up with thousands of lawsuits on their hands, they are treading slowly and carefully. This transition will take years.



    But for Apple to have the pricing flexibility and consumer awareness many are asking for in this thread, they have to handle the retail equation themselves.



    It's the only way for them to ever sell a $500 computer and make money.



    In five years, when there's closer to 700 Apple Stores across North America, things will begin to gel in market share.



    Until then, they'll remain a boutique supplier.




    I think we have two conflicting forces at work here.

    1. A progressive computer company that by its nature is will only appeal to a small minority,

    2. An first class operating system with mainstream appeal.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 90 of 100
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BenRoethig

    I think we have two conflicting forces at work here.

    1. A progressive computer company that by its nature is will only appeal to a small minority,

    2. An first class operating system with mainstream appeal.




    Which is why they should port osx to x86-64

    </can o' worms>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 91 of 100
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Which is why they should port osx to x86-64

    </can o' worms>




    Apple would still be Apple and have the same problem. Instead of moving to another processor and having a bunch of transition woes we should open up what we already have a bit.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 92 of 100
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Which is why they should port osx to x86-64

    </can o' worms>




    That's nice... spend a lot of resources and move it to another 2% marketshare subset.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 93 of 100
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Relic

    WOW, I had no idea that their volume was that low. Apple really is a boutique computer, like Bang and Olufsen.



    What did you expect sir?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 94 of 100
    I'd like a cheaper mac as much as the next guy, but the major companies that can afford to sell PCs on the cheap (HP, Dell) have huge server and storage businesses to subsize the "client" business. The majority of their revenue comes from those businesses. The client computers are icing on the cake.



    The companies that don't have big server businesses to fall back on (Gateway, etc.) are either teeter-tottering on the line of profitability, are subsidized in other ways (Sony's electronic empire), small enough that their razor thin margins are adequate, not making a profit, are being sold, or are already dead.



    It's safe to assume that Xserves aren't turning too many heads at this point. So I think big margins are going to remain important to them until they see an organic demand pick up. That in itself is an IF.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 95 of 100
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Which is why they should port osx to x86-64

    </can o' worms>




    Really wouldn't make a difference IMO, unless you think higher MHz numbers on Macs would somehow lead to an exponential explosion of unit sales. I doubt it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 96 of 100
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Really wouldn't make a difference IMO, unless you think higher MHz numbers on Macs would somehow lead to an exponential explosion of unit sales. I doubt it.



    Also, why would developers even bother to code two different versions of their programs if both target the x86 chipset? Seems to me even less software would be coded for OS X. For proof of this, compare paid software offerings for Linux on x86 compared to Windows-x86. Besides industrial software, what is being offered for Linux? Where's Intuit? Adobe? MS? Where's the Linux package of software for my Canon 300D? Etc., etc.



    I think one of the big reasons software houses develop Mac software is because we Mac users actually pay for it on a higher basis than Win users. Win license sales make up for the theft by volume, but Mac users for the most part reward good software by buying it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 97 of 100
    One of the flaws in the car analogies is the auto market is consolidating. There are a large variety of makes, but few real companies. BMW=BMW, Mini, Rolls ; Ford = Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, Volvo autos ; etc. Just because a single line has low market share does not mean the company has significant economies of scale at work.



    Apple is at this point forming Strategic Alliances with big companies (IBM, HP, etc) much like the marginal auto players are being forced to do.



    As far as Apple, the company, they will survive (assuming the corporate governance continues on the track of seeking high margin niches where innovation goes a long way). As far as the Mac platform it will last as long as it helps that goal (probably a little longer, actually) .
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 98 of 100
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BobtheTomato

    One of the flaws in the car analogies is the auto market is consolidating. There are a large variety of makes, but few real companies. BMW=BMW, Mini, Rolls ; Ford = Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, Volvo autos ; etc. Just because a single line has low market share does not mean the company has significant economies of scale at work.





    I think the biggest flaw in car analogies is simple, any car can pull into any gas station and fill up their tank. This isn't true in the world of computers. In other words, my car (Apple) runs one type of gas (OS X software) while other cars run another type of gas (Windows) and still other cars run their own type of gas (Linux).



    Java is about the only way to develop so that all computers can use the same software, but you lose out on unique advantages inherent in different systems, like Core*, Aqua, and Foundation in OS X for example.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 99 of 100
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Vox Barbara

    What did you expect sir?



    Well, i meant "a_greer" and not the other guy, - actually i do withdraw "sir" either.

    Well, what do you contribute? Go for a stroll in the park
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 100 of 100
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    So macs should only be for rich pointy headed elitists?



    Not necessarily rich, but elitists. Of course.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.