why Apple should LOWER its prices (market share)

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 58
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    The PC industry is about to hit another wall the windows one that is. With longhorn way down the horizon, and no radical updates for a while, I know a lot of sheepish windoze users that updated their computer setup with every iteration if windows. Thus Windows 95 (I need a new computer), windows 98 (crap need another new one already), windows me (same cycle, different time), windows 2000, and now XP, thats 6 new computers in 7-8 years, and a good proportion of consumers did this. During 95-2000 what did we do? we updated our machines but didn't necessarily buy a new one every year and a half. At the last place I worked, they had old imacs they refused to update, right now I have a client that has a huge armound of old macs circa 1995 that they think run along just fine and don't see fit upgrading. I think the PC market is going to hit the same problem.



    Now I know none of this has to do with prices, but remember people are buying macs and the people who buy them don't do so because of the price they get it for.



    I think this price margin equates with coffee. You can add more coffee grounds, or more water at once, but if you don't do both you risk, either diluting the taste, or making it so strong nobody will drink it. Too low prices and we dilute our profits, too high and you get the picture. That said again I don't think any of us know where apple's sales are.
  • Reply 22 of 58
    jadejade Posts: 379member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Absolute market size matters, because you don't sell to percentages; you sell to people. The number of Mac users is steadily increasing.





    And even thought the # of Apple users is steadily increasing...it is only half of the rate of growth in the PC industry, The pc industry in general is growing by about 7% per year, while Apple sales are growing 3%. The absolute market size looks more and more insignificant as time goes on.
  • Reply 23 of 58
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jade:

    And even thought the # of Apple users is steadily increasing...it is only half of the rate of growth in the PC industry, The pc industry in general is growing by about 7% per year, while Apple sales are growing 3%. The absolute market size looks more and more insignificant as time goes on.



    Indeed. But remember, don't confuse Apple's market growth with sales. Apple *sales* of Macs are not growing. They're selling *a lot* fewer computers than they were in the mid-nineties.



    Profit vs. cost to produce is important to keep in mind. If you're making 10x the profit developing for Z platform over X platform then even if you are still making a profit on X, putting those resources towards additional development for Z (and ignoring X entirely) begins to make more financial sense. Of course "porting" software to X may still make it financially viable...



    Apple really needs to come up with "the next big thing".





    Cheers,



    C.
  • Reply 24 of 58
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    The price difference in Macs and PCs is not illusory. It is real. Mac users have convinced themselves that the Mac is a better deal when you add up all of the ?extras? associated with owning a Mac. This is a sad, delusional fantasy. If the Mac has some options that the consumer level PC does not have, those options are clearly not an important factor in the purchasing decision off the average consumer. If the engine that powers your car is perceived as inferior to lower priced competitors, the fact that your car has kid leather seats will not matter. (I hate car analogies.)



    I am sick of hearing about these supposed price equalizers for the Mac. They include, but are not limited to:



    iLife, OS X, stylish design, ease of use, stability, the Mac community, FireWire, no legacy ports, AIO form factor, consistent pricing from vendor to vendor, interoperability, etc.



    All of these things have value. They just aren?t a part of the buying decision of the average consumer. WXP handles digital photos extremely well. It is built into the OS. Apple could learn a lesson or two in that regard. Most people don?t have DV cams. Why price a consumer PC with such apps if people don?t want or can?t use them. OS X is great. But only Mac users buy a computer for the OS. The switcher campaign tried to exploit all of the pent up rage at Windows. What they found is that there is no pent up rage against Windows. There are no hoards of Windows haters ready to jump ship in favor of the first alternative that comes along. If there were, then Mac OS and Linux would be splitting the market. Windows has few problems that a restart won?t fix and people don?t seem to mind doing that. Most people I know turn their computer off everyday anyway. Ease of use is not a selling point because it can?t be proven without owning one for a while. There is no outcry for standard FW ports. People love legacy ports because that means that they old peripherals will work with a new machine. The AIO desktop is the most unwanted form factor in PC history. And since when is shopping around a bad thing? Interoperability is a mixed bag. Even if everything on a Mac works well together, you have fewer things to try on a Mac because of the smaller software and parts market.



    All of these things may add cost to the Mac, but from a sales perspective, they do not add value for the core consumer market. From time to time, someone posts the prices of the latest consumer PC. Inevitably, a Macolyte will counter post with the real price of that PC if you add all of the things to it that a Mac has. It is a losing argument because the average consumer does not want all those ?extras? that jack of the price. The budget PC buyer wants a budget PC. This type of buyer may not know exactly what they will do with their computer, but they want the most power and features for the least amount of money. I call them ?tag shoppers.?



    This is a person who buys based on what they can read and compare on the sales tag. Processor speed, amount of ram, HD size and speed, graphics memory; these are the tangibles. They also consider the name and look of the machine. Thunder, Mach V, Dimension, lighted cases, visible buttons on the front panel and the like are all things that speak of barely contained power. Compare that to the sterile look and feel of the i/eMac, not to mention the name. Consider that all tag info for the i/eMac is a third to half that of the PC except for the price which can be double, and you have a no sale almost every time. All of the extras in the world want convince the tag shopper to buy a Mac because the basics aren?t adequately covered.



    I was a tag shopper myself. I love my iBook. It is the best computer I have ever owned, by far. Still, what led me to the Mac will not apply for the bulk of the market. I had to ignore common sense and take a leap of faith that I was compelled to take in order to buy this Mac. I am glad I did but Apple can?t sell if they are counting on people to ignore the tangibles and simply have faith. Apple must address the tag shopper in a more significant way or their market share will continue to shrink.
  • Reply 25 of 58
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Neruda

    By posing the following questions I do not mean to rhetorically imply that either of you have made these assertions, but in mentioning "the intagible Apple experience" in relation to the iPod's ability to expose non-Mac users to Apple's technology (Trojan Horse, as Merovingian put it) do you really think that Apple can rely on the iPod to a) expose non-Mac people to Apple technolgy as a means to increase sales in other sections of the product line, or b) to increase its overall marketshare?



    That's clearly Apple's hope. My opinion on whether it will work or not is irrelevant; I'm waiting for the numbers. I can see the logic they're using, but that doesn't mean it's a sure thing at all.



    They've had no luck getting people to buy Macs with direct advertising, so I can't blame them for trying to make an end run.



    Quote:

    What doe the iPod teach Windows people about OS X, it is instructive about Apple's quality/superb design, but people can buy the windows version. Does anyone know the breakdown of Windows/Mac iPods that Apple is selling? This would be good to know.



    Apple says "more than 50%" go to Windows. The last attempt at a more concrete figure posited a 70/30 split, which I can see.



    What does iPod teach people about OS X? Nothing. What does it tell people about the Apple experience? Plenty. The hope - and I emphasize the word hope - is that people who bought an iPod to use with their PC and fell in love with it will buy an Apple computer next.



    Quote:

    When the hell is Apple going to actively advertise OS X instead of hoping that people acquire positive information about it through what is practically osmosis?



    I'm not sure what advertizing OS X would accomplish. Switchers wouldn't buy OS X, they'd buy a Mac. What the whole package can do is what's interesting, and that's what Apple's trying to get across.



    What a particular OS can do is geek territory.



    Quote:

    http://premium.money.cnn.com/pr/subs...0404/index.htm



    "Meanwhile, Apple's share of the worldwide personal-computer market has shrunk to 2 percent from 3.2 percent five years ago. What's more, despite their soaring sales, iPods are depressing profitability because of their lower profit margin. The result: While Apple's sales of $6.2 billion last fiscal year were nearly unchanged from 1999, profits plummeted 90 percent to $69 million, from $601 million four years ago. It's unclear what Jobs can do or plans to do to turn around Apple's fortunes -- he refused to talk to MONEY about its future."



    I'm not surprised that he refused to, given the baffling amount of idiocy on display here.



    The biggest iPods have a margin around 50%, so CNN is spouting ignorance here. The iPod mini has a lower profit margin than its bigger cousin - that's where they're getting confused.



    The profit difference has nothing to do with iPods and everything to do with the fact that 1999 Apple was trying to shore up their current cash reserve; now, they're spending half a billion per year on R&D, among other things, and they have more products and more employees than they did in '99.



    So much for CNN Money.



    Quote:

    What I find most distressing about this are NOT the declining financial numbers, but the comment (which I agree with and which is a tangential reason for starting this thread) but that it is "unclear what Jobs can do or plans to do to turn around Apple's fortunes". Isn't it unclear? If not, what exactly is Apple doing to ameliorate the problems that have been discussed in this thread and others?



    You mean, besides pulling off a massive and successful transition to a new OS, introducing a personal computer that lit up the landscape, trying to expand into general electronics retail (and pulling back when they discovered just how much Best Buy sucks) then going into retail themselves and succeeding, introducing one stunning design after another, rolling out a lust-inducing line of laptops for years running, rolling out a terrific server that is well received despite their complete lack of credibility in that market, working with IBM on the 970, launching a marketing campaign that made Apple the absolute #1 brand among youth, and one of the top 5 brands generally? That's a broad survey. The fact is that Apple have been busting their asses. If they haven't succeeded, it's because they're up against the problem that "it's a Windows world" and alternatives, no matter how attractive they may superficially appear, are ruled out by definition. But since Apple is such a well-loved brand, if they roll out something besides a personal computer it rocks the market.



    I don't think they've failed to do anything. Far from it. They've failed to get much in the way of results, but that just means they're up against one hell of a problem. I've been saying that for some time on these boards: What they're up against are network effects. Read up on those. They're self-reinforcing, self-healing and self-perpetuating, and they're incredibly difficult to run against.
  • Reply 26 of 58
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    iLife, OS X, stylish design, ease of use, stability, the Mac community, FireWire, no legacy ports, AIO form factor, consistent pricing from vendor to vendor, interoperability, etc.



    All of these things have value. They just aren?t a part of the buying decision of the average consumer.




    Actually, consumers that don't stop at "it's a Mac" stop at "it doesn't run Windows."



    Quote:

    The switcher campaign tried to exploit all of the pent up rage at Windows. What they found is that there is no pent up rage against Windows.







    No, what they found is that while there is tremendous rage against Windows, it doesn't translate into sales for Macs as readily as they'd hoped.

    Quote:

    From time to time, someone posts the prices of the latest consumer PC. Inevitably, a Macolyte will counter post with the real price of that PC if you add all of the things to it that a Mac has. It is a losing argument because the average consumer does not want all those ?extras? that jack of the price. The budget PC buyer wants a budget PC. This type of buyer may not know exactly what they will do with their computer, but they want the most power and features for the least amount of money. I call them ?tag shoppers.?



    Nice little switch there in mid-argument. First you say "average consumer" and then you switch to "budget PC buyer."



    The average consumer might be lured in by a budget PC price, but what do they walk out of the store with? In the case of the budget PC buyers, who scrounge for parts at swap meets when they can't get them for free, and hand-build systems for under $50, they obviously aren't anyone Apple can target. The issue is whether there are people who Apple can reach, the people who really do want to be able to do things other than run MS Works.



    Also, there's another classic argument switch here: The great complaint against the AIO is that there's no "future proofing" - but at the same time, you dismiss Apple's future-proofing in software, which matters more. After all, if the software isn't easy enough for grandma to use, the theoretical capabilities of the hardware are irrelevant.



    I wonder to what extent Apple's "digital hub" is ignored because everyone's already tried that on their Windows machines and nothing worked?



    Quote:

    I was a tag shopper myself. I love my iBook. It is the best computer I have ever owned, by far. Still, what led me to the Mac will not apply for the bulk of the market. I had to ignore common sense and take a leap of faith that I was compelled to take in order to buy this Mac.



    Until Apple already has a significant market share, the only way to eliminate the "leap of faith" is to sell a box running Windows. If the iPod working seamlessly with their PC can give them enough faith in Apple to make the leap, it's done its job. Base price is important, but only once you've already got someone interested.
  • Reply 27 of 58
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    Amorph,



    I consider the budget PC to be in the $599 - $799 range $800 - $1,299 or so covers the mid range. From there on up gets you a high-end PC. Sure, budget PC buyers are easily bumped to the mid-range level. That is because the features for price is easy to understand. One tag has a 80 GB HD, the next one has a 120 GB HD. You don't have to know much about computers to see what you are getting and realize that bigger is better. The same goes for all the tag items. A Mac can't be sold by what's on the tag. In fact, Apple must convince people to ignore what's on the tag. It is a much tougher sale. Also, the PC shopper considers the price of entry, as do most of us. If the price of entry for the Mac is $300 more than that of a PC, coupled with the fact that the tag items are still not equal, the assumption would be that the Mac would cost too much when equally outfitted and upgraded. How much would it cost to go from an 80 GB drive to 120? With a PC, about $50. With an e/iMac, it is not even an option. Therefore, the i/eMac will never compare favorably for the tag shopper. If the PC shopper spends $1000, they had to work their way up to that point. They didn't have to start at that point and they got added features that made it worth it to them. If they bother to compare those features to the $1800 iMac, the iMac comes up way short. It's not that complicated people. You don't have to look that far to figure out why the Mac doesn't sell well to the PC buying public. Just look at the tag. That says it all.
  • Reply 28 of 58
    jadejade Posts: 379member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    "budget PC buyer."



    Also, there's another classic argument switch here: The great complaint against the AIO is that there's no "future proofing" - but at the same time, you dismiss Apple's future-proofing in software, which matters more. After all, if the software isn't easy enough for grandma to use, the theoretical capabilities of the hardware are irrelevant.





    Well let me tell you about a budget computer buyer I met. They were looking at budget PCs in th $500 price range, and also considered an emac.



    The reason they didn't get the emac had less to do with price and more to do with the perceived value.



    Since this woman with a family had a limited budget and couldn't get the latest and greatest computer she wanted something to grow with her. She was also concerned about replacement if the computer were to fail.



    If you get an emac and the monitor breaks you need a new emac. If you have and emac and the dvd-rom goes out, you need a new emac or a more expensive external one (that won't work with all of your programs)



    So she bought a pc figuring if her needs change she can take in in the shop and get a new hard drive, dvd burner, or just get a new monitor when she can afford a flat one.



    For the priveledge of choosing your monitor with a mac, the price of entry is $1300.



    Now I know, as Amorph says, most people buy the whole package when they come in for a computer. And buying the whole package allows you to save on somethings and get more on other thing. Will AIOs it is all or nothing. Want a big LCD monitor but o DVD burner. Buy a powermac g4 and 17" monitor for more than the DVD burning imac. Want a DVD burner but smaller screen...get a 12" powerbook and external monitor. See it is not logical.



    So it sucks for the budget buyers, it sucks for the AIO hater, and the AIOs still give you a lot less than equivalently priced pcs.......who is Apple selling computers to?
  • Reply 29 of 58
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jade

    who is Apple selling computers to?



    They're selling them to all of the people that continue to buy them every quarter. If a particular machine wasn't selling, Apple would stop making it. (a la Cube.) An Apple employee once told me when I was having a discussion like this with him: You can't please all the people all the time, but you can please some of them some of the time.



    I'm not disappointed with Apple's marketshare. I don't think Jobs is really disappointed either. It's a hell of a comeback, but as I have said before, I am sure that Apple will be just happy as long as it continues to carve out a little niche that allows it to survive. It's doing that, and I'm happy.



    You guys are also, at some point, going to have to come to accept that Apple is not a bargain PC company. Apple doesn't want to sell a bargain PC anymore than Mercedes wants to sell you a $20,000 Benz. That goes on to build a perception about the brand, and even if it doesn't jive with you guys, it's what Apple wants. Apple wants to be known for well built, stylish, high quality kit. They bring the price on it as low as they can.
  • Reply 30 of 58
    aslan^aslan^ Posts: 599member
    I think Apple is mostly selling to "creative professionals." The people who already spend a lot of money on other pro harware so the price of an imac or other mac just really isnt too much.



    People like that use their computers as tools, and when shopping for a replacement tool, they just want something that did exactly what their last tool did.



    This is why there are so many still using OS 9 although no one on these boards does that. If you bought a computer with a particular function in mind and integrated it into your workflow, the only reason to replace it is if it breaks. And if it does brake, the replacement might have new features or whatever but it better do what it did before or it risks changing your workflow. Thats not always a bad thing but creative pro's have lots of other things to be worrying about and dont always want to change the way they do things, especially if they're making money the way they're doing them now.



    About the value of the iLife tools... last night I came across an interesting anomaly, something that I would never have forseen as a problem. My girlfriend wanted to email me a photo she had taken with her digital camera. The photo was at around 1600 x 1200 resolution so I told her she would have to make it smaller. This was hard enuogh to explain to her so I thought Id just walk her through the steps. So I fired up Win XP pro, which she also uses at home, and I tried to walk her through the steps she could take to export that photo at a reasonable resolution. Well wouldn't you know it, XP pro doesnt come with any software that can do that ! I couldnt believe it. So I asked her about the software that came with her camera, Kodak easyshare. Ive never used it before so I pulled up the web page and asked her to read off the options available to her. There is an "email photo" option but that didnt work and as far as I could see there was no way to export the photo to another format or change its size to something more email friendly !

    I would never have guessed because I still store all my photos on my ibook and use iphoto to manage them.



    I guess there is something to be said for bundled software afterall... and my most used app after safari is World Book. That programs great, ever had a discussion with a buddy where you both seem to not really know what you're taking about. World Book clears that up real quick.



    All that said... it would still be a lot cheaper to buy a reasonable PC and add some consumer software to it. Nowadays my primary computer is a PC running Windows and Linux. Its a lot cheaper in the desktop area. The only mac I'll be buying is a laptop which Ive always maintained is where Apple hold there own in value.



    But... those XBrite (etc) screens are very tempting. If the next powerbooks dont have something similar then count me out. As a cross platform "geek" Ive got no quarrels with spending less for more.



    And I can get massive encyclopedia's for cheap in the PC world anyway
  • Reply 31 of 58
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AsLan^:

    This is why there are so many still using OS 9 although no one on these boards does that.



    Hey... I still work a fair bit in 9! And hey, 9 works great for the most part - If our shop could buy a modern Mac that could still run 9, we probably would...

    Quote:

    About the value of the iLife tools... last night I came across an interesting anomaly, something that I would never have forseen as a problem. My girlfriend wanted to email me a photo she had taken with her digital camera. The photo was at around 1600 x 1200 resolution so I told her she would have to make it smaller. This was hard enuogh to explain to her so I thought Id just walk her through the steps. So I fired up Win XP pro, which she also uses at home, and I tried to walk her through the steps she could take to export that photo at a reasonable resolution. Well wouldn't you know it, XP pro doesnt come with any software that can do that !



    Ahh... to be fair, Paint can scale or res down your images, crop them and so on. It can also save them in a variety of common formats.

    Quote:

    And I can get massive encyclopedia's for cheap in the PC world anyway



    Isn't that what Google's for...?





    Cheers,



    C.
  • Reply 32 of 58
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AsLan^



    About the value of the iLife tools... last night I came across an interesting anomaly, something that I would never have forseen as a problem. My girlfriend wanted to email me a photo she had taken with her digital camera. The photo was at around 1600 x 1200 resolution so I told her she would have to make it smaller. This was hard enuogh to explain to her so I thought Id just walk her through the steps. So I fired up Win XP pro, which she also uses at home, and I tried to walk her through the steps she could take to export that photo at a reasonable resolution. Well wouldn't you know it, XP pro doesnt come with any software that can do that ! I couldnt believe it. So I asked her about the software that came with her camera, Kodak easyshare. Ive never used it before so I pulled up the web page and asked her to read off the options available to her. There is an "email photo" option but that didnt work and as far as I could see there was no way to export the photo to another format or change its size to something more email friendly !

    I would never have guessed because I still store all my photos on my ibook and use iphoto to manage them.





    Looking at my Win XP install, if you click on an image, on the left sidebar under "File and Folder tasks" is an "E-mail this file" item, and when you click on it, it asks you if you want to resize images before sending them (and a disclosure for showing more options allows you to choose small/med/large for the photo resize).
  • Reply 33 of 58
    aslan^aslan^ Posts: 599member
    About paint..



    yes paint can do those things you mentioned but I found it to be difficult with out manually cutting the image resizing it then adjusting the canvas size. A little too much to explain over the phone to someone who isnt too good with computers.



    And the other thing "email this file"



    well Ive never noticed that, I will definatley look for it next time I boot XP, that could be the solution to her problems.



    Cheers.
  • Reply 34 of 58
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Neruda

    Exactly! This is the point that I think most people on these boads and Mac fans in general are failing to grasp. Just because WE know the benefits of owning a Mac, doesn't mean that a) general consumers know this, or b) that these benefits are enough to overcome the perceived "expensive" prices of Macs.



    I can give so many examples of this, but this one will do:

    My fiancee's sister needed to buy a laptop for college. I explained all of the benefits of owning a Powerbook or an Ibook, but then the quesiton of price came up, and on that basis alone, her father bought her an AMD/XP notebook. Interestingly enough, she's had so many problems with this notebook that she wants to sell it and buy an ibook, but that's another topic



    This has happened many, many, many times. One of the biggest obstacles to owning a Mac that mentioned in non-Mac forums (slashdot, geeks) is always price.




    I hear about this sort of thing all the time. Thankfully I know a decent amount of people who are switching to Apple computers, but there is still an awful lot of people who go "Macs are great these days, and I'd love to own one, but they're too expensive."
  • Reply 35 of 58
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jim Paradise

    people who go "Macs are great these days, and I'd love to own one, but they're too expensive."



    That's the great thing about the Apple brand; people say this a lot. At least they aren't saying, "Macs suck, and I would own one because they cost too much."



    Apple has established itself as a high end brand. Lotus Esprits are great these days, and I'd love to own a 2004 V8 Turbo, but they're just too expensive. Lotus doesn't have a problem continuing to exist, and neither does Apple. You people should stop and think how much different this community would be if everyone owned a Mac
  • Reply 36 of 58
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Two points to add to the discussion.



    99.999% of consumers who use Wintel at work will use Wintel at home.



    There is no way deep price cuts or aggressive Mac OS X advertising or scretive iPod "trogan horse messages" will EVER change this.



    It's not about the box but is about the legacy.



    The truth is nobody is going to move to a platform were they will have to buy the majority of their software/hardware again. Its just not going to happen.



    Dave
  • Reply 37 of 58
    ps5533ps5533 Posts: 476member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Neruda

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=39143



    I wanted to offer a counterpoint to the above thread and argue reasons why Apple should lower all of their prices in order to increase its market share.

    http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/01/15.15.shtml



    A recent article on Appleinsider's front page suggested that Apple would lower the prices of the iPod's to increase marketshare while making up for the loss in profit margins on volume. This makes perfect sense, and while Apple has considerably lowered its prices over the years (remember when a powerbook cost 6k?), I don't think that they have done so aggressively enough. I argue that this, while not being the only factor, is a major reason why Apple's marketshare has decreased in comparison to other PC vendors.



    Pro/Con Arguments concerning Marketshare:



    People have cogently argued that Apple's marketshare is not as important as their other numbers (profit margins, yearly profits, etc.) In the end, however, the achilles heel of this argument is that the two are interconnected, meaning that Apple's diminishing market share invariably places increasing demans on its profit margins. Can Apple's sales/market share continue to decline and the company remain profitable? That's what the company has been doing for the previous 10+ years but at at some point, the marketshare numbers could get so low that profit margins will not be able to make up the difference. There is only so much money a company can squeeze out of a diminishing customber base.



    So, in my opinion, Apple should sacrifice it's profit margins now and make up the difference in volume (ie. increasing market share). How can it do this?



    1) Lower prices signinficantly to bring its products to comparable price points with its competitors. Before all of you jump down my throat with the usual "Macs are not more expensive than PCs" tirades let me save you the trouble. You and I may think that, but the average Joe Blow walking into Best-Buy or some other generic PC store doesn't. Price is only one consideration, but people in these type of forums fail to realize it is ofen the most important one. So I'm talking about the tangible, concrete price, not price abstractions that are factored into the sticker price after the product is purchased (Total Cost of Ownership). 90% of people do not factor these considerations into the final price, they are not geeks/computer savants hanging out in these forums , and since perception is reality, the reality is that to most people Macs are more expensive. Don't project your computer intellingence onto the general population. Most people don't know what the hell TCO is. Besides, why would any consumer argue for higher prices (which, if you think about it, the argument that Apple's prices are already competitive could be interpreted as)?



    2) Availability:



    As mentioned earlier, since price is not the only determining factor there are some things that even lower prices will not ammend (remember Webojects used to cost 10k, the price decrease by itself did little to increase its sales). Some people are not going to buy Macs no matter what the price-points for various reasons (everyone they know uses PCs, think that Macs have less software, games, irrational hatred for all things Mac,...) That said, Apple should increase the number of outlets/stores that sell Macs. I dont' know if this is even possible with third party vendors since Apple is trying to do this with its own stores. The problem with the Apple store strategy is that once again, they preach mostly to the converted (ie. Mac fans). Apple should have a presence in as many venues as possible so that its products are exposed to as many consumers as possible.



    If I ran Apple, my new Mac prices (new, future hardware).

    Dual 2.6- $2599 (better $1999, this will not happen)

    Dual 2.4- $1799 ($1499)

    Dual 2.0- $1299 ($999)



    Imacs

    G5 1.6 17" ($799)

    G5 1.8 17" ($999)

    G5 2.0 17" ($1199)

    G5 20" (add $300 to above)



    Powerbooks (high-end to low-model, $1999-799)



    I know you're going to kill me for these prices, so feel free to supply your own.




    hmmm one little thing tho...you dont run apple so you dont diecide that... but i would like that very much!
  • Reply 38 of 58
    jadejade Posts: 379member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LoCash

    That's the great thing about the Apple brand; people say this a lot. At least they aren't saying, "Macs suck, and I would own one because they cost too much."



    Apple has established itself as a high end brand. Lotus Esprits are great these days, and I'd love to own a 2004 V8 Turbo, but they're just too expensive. Lotus doesn't have a problem continuing to exist, and neither does Apple. You people should stop and think how much different this community would be if everyone owned a Mac






    Computers, unlike cars, need other developers, software writers, website developers and so on to support a platfor. so even is Roll Royce only makes 200 cars per year and makes a ton of profits, and they went out of business tomorrow, roads would still accept Rolls'. You would still be able to get gas and tires, and even find some service people.



    If Apple ceased to exist, well Microsoft wouldn't update office, Quicken would stop, banking online would be impossibe and printer companies will stop making drivers. And that is why marketshare is important.



    apple making profits is great, but I do not want to be stuck using only Apple stuff in the future. Because all the developers abandoned the platform.



    I don't think Apple needs Dell pricing or volume...but scragglying around 3% marketshare doesn't really help matters
  • Reply 39 of 58
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AsLan^:

    About paint..



    yes paint can do those things you mentioned but I found it to be difficult with out manually cutting the image resizing it then adjusting the canvas size. A little too much to explain over the phone to someone who isnt too good with computers.



    JFTR, you don't need to day any of that... CTRL-W: Scale, CTRL-E: Resolution.



    I really believe Apple needs to come up with something that takes computing to the next level. Really and fundamentally improve how people use computers. Every year it becomes clearer and clearer that Apple simply can't go up against PC ubiquity head-to-head... It's time to invent a whole new playing field. 8)



    Cheers,



    C.
  • Reply 40 of 58
    Ok, my analogy was not written to discuss if Apple went out of business
Sign In or Register to comment.