why Apple should LOWER its prices (market share)

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 58
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    JI 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)





    Well put.
  • Reply 42 of 58
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jade

    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.




    This is where your rebuttal of the car anaology breaks down too.



    The software you have would still continue to run. True, there would not be any new updates, but the stuff you have still runs.



    Your argument is similar in many ways to all of the people that whine when Apple releases a new version of the OS and charges $129 for it. They suddenly assume they are being ripped off. However, they are only being ripped off if their current version no longer works and they are FORCED to upgrade for $129, or if they pay $129 and the product doesn't have the features that were told it would have.



    It is also true that you might feel like you are "falling behind" when things are not updated all of the time...but this is merely an emotional issue. It is not always true or important. For example, I have a 2 year old iBook 600MHz. My iBook is on the edge of obsolesence. Soon it will be "obsolete"...in a sense. But it still works fine.



    A better example to provide is about all of the data you have on you machine being in some kind of data/file formats that you will not easily be able to convert to a new platform, now that your platform (say, Apple for example) is dead. But, this is life I guess. It is probably equivalent in hassle to selling/buying and moving houses.
  • Reply 43 of 58
    jadejade Posts: 379member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla





    A better example to provide is about all of the data you have on you machine being in some kind of data/file formats that you will not easily be able to convert to a new platform, now that your platform (say, Apple for example) is dead. But, this is life I guess. It is probably equivalent in hassle to selling/buying and moving houses.




    Ok fair enough: it's one think to have no path of updates by personal choice. But it is another if it is forced. And at some point in the future, it could be a forced move, instead of a chosen one, if things continue in the current matter.



    When a new OS comes out it is your choice to get it or not, same thing with getting rid of an obsolete computer. But if websitesd choose not to support Macs because of declining marketshare, there really isn't a solution for us.
  • Reply 44 of 58
    nerudaneruda Posts: 427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    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.... 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....





    I don't question Apple's track record as an innovator, I question its business plan/strategy.



    Quote:

    [i]

    I don't think they've failed to do anything... They've failed to get much in the way of results, but that just means they're up against one hell of a problem. [/B]



    You've contradicted yourself in those two sentences, Amorth You say they haven't failed to do anything and then you say that they've failed to get results, which is exactly my point. Something must be done.
  • Reply 45 of 58
    stjobsstjobs Posts: 45member
    Sorry to dredge up this old thread, but Apple really should cut the prices on the G5 line by $3-400 across all the models. Look at the pricing of the last dual G4 (Quicksilver) lineup, and compare them to the current dual G5s. Computers should never get more expensive, as advancing technology and manufacturing should compensate for increased development costs. The G4s entered the market priced for about what the G3s cost - now, with the G5s, Apple has sprung an approximately $500 price increase per model.



    Some apologists may claim "Apple has the right to increase prices, this is a new model" - that's sheer bullshit. The G5 has been out for over a year, and there's no reason for them to charge more other than to create a perception among the Mac faithful that it is a somehow "higher end" model than the G4s it replaced.
  • Reply 46 of 58
    nerudaneruda Posts: 427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by stjobs

    Sorry to dredge up this old thread, but Apple really should cut the prices on the G5 line by $3-400 across all the models. Look at the pricing of the last dual G4 (Quicksilver) lineup, and compare them to the current dual G5s. Computers should never get more expensive, as advancing technology and manufacturing should compensate for increased development costs. The G4s entered the market priced for about what the G3s cost - now, with the G5s, Apple has sprung an approximately $500 price increase per model.



    Some apologists may claim "Apple has the right to increase prices, this is a new model" - that's sheer bullshit. The G5 has been out for over a year, and there's no reason for them to charge more other than to create a perception among the Mac faithful that it is a somehow "higher end" model than the G4s it replaced.




    Apple's marketshare numbers are up (first reversal of downward trend in a long time).

    http://www.insanelygreatmac.com/news.php?id=3571



    Growth would have been much stronger if the company did not have to deal with G5 supply problems, but what are the reasons for this growth?
  • Reply 47 of 58
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    The G5 prices are fine. Dropping them $300 simply makes it harder to separate the lowend G5 from the high end iMac.



    What was needed with the last refresh was higher clockspeeds.



    entry PM should have been 2.0Ghz

    middle PM should have been 2.2Ghz

    top PM of course the same at 2.5Ghz



    There really is no magical elixir for Powermac sales. Most users don't need them and would be fine with a Powerbook or refreshed iMac. I don't expect to ever see sales of PMs skyrocket unless the masses stop websurfing and start using pro apps daily.
  • Reply 48 of 58
    stjobsstjobs Posts: 45member
    hmurchison, 200 mHz higher clockspeeds make very little difference in terms of performance for the price. Frankly, your average buyer would rather have a $300 cheaper computer than slightly higher clock speed - it makes the Power Mac stack up better next to that Dell he has been considering.



    "Growth would have been much stronger if the company did not have to deal with G5 supply problems, but what are the reasons for this growth?"



    I'm not a market analyst, but it was likely spiked by the iPod and iPod mini's continued market penetration and the new announcements this quarter. Simply because Apple is profitable or growing doesn't mean a 10% price cut is a bad idea.



    "Dropping them $300 simply makes it harder to separate the lowend G5 from the high end iMac."



    I strongly disagree. The iMac prices should be dropped proportionally also, then. Anyway, just because price cuts would move one line into the price range of another is a really poor reason to keep prices high.



    Regardless, equivalency in terms of pricing compared with the outgoing model makes sense. No reason to up the ante with each new model - technology and manufacturing efficiency should make up for R&D costs.
  • Reply 49 of 58
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    Quote:

    hmurchison, 200 mHz higher clockspeeds make very little difference in terms of performance for the price. Frankly, your average buyer would rather have a $300 cheaper computer than slightly higher clock speed - it makes the Power Mac stack up better next to that Dell he has been considering.



    Duly noted however, the Powermacs aren't really aimed at the avergage buyer. The tendency is for consumer to look at a PC Minitower and want to compare it with Apple's "minitower". Seeing the higher prices they often state "I wish these computers were $300 cheaper" without fully understanding why the Powermacs are in fact more expensive. In my past I've tried to explain more technical features concerning computers and why some models are different only to watch the consumers eyes glaze over.



    Lopping money off only works if you can assure yourself that you will sell x amount more computers because of that price decrease. With Apple their market is more finite. Even at lower pricing they will still lose out because of various needs that X86 PC provide better or more cheaply. Thus Apple would lose profits without gaining the much needed revenue.



    The Powermacs are simply aimed at a constitiency that is far less price conscious than what many here on AI know. Most of here on these boards do not generate income with our Macs. Once you do generate income $300 is nothing, that's an hour or two of billing for many Professionals.



    The ideal iMac would IMHO would have 3 models.



    $1299 15"

    $1499 17"

    $1899 20"



    My only beef is that graphics need to be upgradable and I think I'll get my wish maybe not this generation but soon.



    The eMac sales for Q3 prove that despite the bashing some give, it is a capable lowend computer that sells.
  • Reply 50 of 58
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Duly noted however, the Powermacs aren't really aimed at the avergage buyer.



    thanks for saying that. i'm tired of all the people who think they cant do ANYTHING on a Mac unless it's a G5.
  • Reply 51 of 58
    stjobsstjobs Posts: 45member
    The thing is, many people don't buy Power Macs because they are professional users - they buy them because they can't stand the lack of expandability that an iMac or eMac offers. They are basically dead end systems, and while the eMac is priced low enough to justify that, the iMac really isn't.



    Therefore, the only real choice for a "power user" - not necessarily creative professional - who wants a desktop Mac that is not an all-in-one (they may already have their monitor, or just want more choices) - is the Power Mac.



    Saying that Apple posits the Power Mac as some special lineup for professionals is just marketing. In reality, it's the only configurable desktop they offer. I'm not saying they should go back to the days when they had a plethora of desktop models, but since the Power Mac is pretty much the only option, they need to find some middle ground in terms of pricing.
  • Reply 52 of 58
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by stjobs

    The thing is, many people don't buy Power Macs because they are professional users - they buy them because they can't stand the lack of expandability that an iMac or eMac offers. They are basically dead end systems, and while the eMac is priced low enough to justify that, the iMac really isn't.



    Therefore, the only real choice for a "power user" - not necessarily creative professional - who wants a desktop Mac that is not an all-in-one (they may already have their monitor, or just want more choices) - is the Power Mac.



    Saying that Apple posits the Power Mac as some special lineup for professionals is just marketing. In reality, it's the only configurable desktop they offer. I'm not saying they should go back to the days when they had a plethora of desktop models, but since the Power Mac is pretty much the only option, they need to find some middle ground in terms of pricing.




    Bring back the 1.8 single cpu, with the PM enclosure include a 60 gig hdd, include combo drive, +$80 for super drive. charge 1299 and BAM there ya go.



    AND the PMs of today should be all pcix, for 1999, no pcix and a 4 gig limit is pathetic for the dual 1.8
  • Reply 53 of 58
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    Quote:

    Saying that Apple posits the Power Mac as some special lineup for professionals is just marketing. In reality, it's the only configurable desktop they offer. I'm not saying they should go back to the days when they had a plethora of desktop models, but since the Power Mac is pretty much the only option, they need to find some middle ground in terms of pricing.





    I don't really think it's that much marketing. Again the typical Dell computer buy doesn't understand design features like PCI-X, Hyperstransport and the like. They feel most comfortable with easy metrics like "megahertz", "Megabytes" and "Gigabytes". I agree though the perception upgradability or lack thereof is harmful. Consumers still think dual optical drives should be standard. I see Apple moving away from AIO systems and offering upgradable graphics in the near future. The iMac mobo may be the precursor to Powerbook G5s. We'll see .



    Nvidia's proposed MXM upradable graphics



    More MXM information from Hardocp



    MXM in three flavors



    It'll probably take a generation but we'll be there.
  • Reply 54 of 58
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Are G5 prices too high? The Army didn't think so. They will be getting an Xserve cluster, which should be the second most powerful computer in the world when it's operational. Apple beat out the Intel powered competition on performance, price and ease of administration.



    Myth 1: Lowering prices will increase sales.



    Reality: It would generate a few more sales, but not nearly enough to make up for the lost sales revenue. There are too many factors now that influence people to buy a "standard" Windows PC. A better way to increase Mac sales might be to introduce the right product at a reasonable price.



    Myth 2: Getting Macs into more stores will increase awareness and sales.



    Reality: Most stores don't want products that do not sell well. Also, Apple would spread itself thin, supporting many outlets and none of them selling much. This is a mode of operation that Apple got itself out of several years ago. Also, look at Dell. Dell is not everywhere, yet they are selling more computers than anyone.
  • Reply 55 of 58
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by snoopy

    Are G5 prices too high? The Army didn't think so. They will be getting an Xserve cluster, which should be the second most powerful computer in the world when it's operational. Apple beat out the Intel powered competition on performance, price and ease of administration.





    What does the army, VT, and other clusters have to do with the average consumer desktop purchaser? For that Matter, what does Illustrator, PS, DW, FCP, Motion, or any other adobe/pro product out there have to do with the average desktop consumer? Nothing!



    If you say that the G5 lineup represents a good value for the Super Computer/creative pro market, fine. What that means is that Apple does not and has not for some time have/had a configuration for the average desktop consumer. Clue, the iMac ain't it. A better way to put is that Apple sells no consumer towers. Still, the G5 tower is all a tower seeker has to look at. For a power using consumer, it is a bad deal, but it is all they have to look at from Apple. So expect to hear people calling for consumer prices.



    I think the reason there are no consumer towers from Apple is the same thing that plagues the iMac line. They can't do it. They can't create a system that has competitive specs with PCs along with a competitive price. Positioning the G5s as high end workstations, they can charge anything they want. I am convinced that Apple really just doesn't want to play in the traditional consumer arena. The i/eMac does not cater to the average tower buyer, nor does the PM. Whether you call it a headless iMac or a consumer level PM, Apple needs to build a Tower Mac that competes with the Dells and the Gateways and the HPs. They need to put something out there that the average tower user is familiar with and might be willing to buy. If, that is, Apple really wants to sell computers to the other 98%. If they prefer magazine covers and design accolades to sales slips, then they are doing exceptionally well already and don't need to change a thing. Consumer tower users simply need to go buy a PC and recognize that they are not a part of Apple's target market.
  • Reply 56 of 58
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    What does the army, VT, and other clusters have to do with the average consumer desktop purchaser? For that Matter, what does Illustrator, PS, DW, FCP, Motion, or any other adobe/pro product out there have to do with the average desktop consumer? Nothing!



    If you say that the G5 lineup represents a good value for the Super Computer/creative pro market, fine. What that means is that Apple does not and has not for some time have/had a configuration for the average desktop consumer. . . .









    I agree with you, completely. I was addressing the mindless suggestion that all Apple needs to do is cut prices on their current products -- a good way to go broke. Rather, Apple needs some new products to fill the gaping holes in their product line. I alluded to this in my post under "Myth 1." It affects me personally, since I now get by using dedicated Beige G3s for two specific tasks. If Apple ever makes suitable replacements, I will buy them.
  • Reply 57 of 58
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    Everyone keeps calling for consumer towers. That's pure nonsense. The only reason why PCs are towers is because of economies of scale. Over the years consumres have equated big rectangular boxes with power.



    Apple realizes that people have conditioned to think they need towers. I see them as trying to buck this silly trend and get consumers to realize they need something functional in the consumer space. Stuff like multiple HD bays and dual optical drives are outdated in the consumer home. PCs are slowly evolving. Look at the amount of Small Form Factor(SFF) systems that are now available. The trend is moving away from huge boxes that take loud fans to keep cool.



    Computers are meant to be small. IBM fell victim to the same cultural phenomena. They couldn't see a "dinky" little desktop as ever being competiton for their huge mainframes.



    Apple is almost there. I truly belive that they need to consider abandoning the AIO form within 2 generations. PCI Express is going to allow the easier upgrade to faster GPU. HD sizes are still pushing upward. There's no need for huge boxes anymore.



    I'm buying and iMac G5 regardless.
  • Reply 58 of 58
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Everyone keeps calling for consumer towers. That's pure nonsense. . .



    Some are saying tower or mini-tower, but many are simply asking for a headless model, and/or slots for expandability in the desktop market below Power Mac workstations. These requests are perfectly valid. I would say that 75 percent of this market does not want an AIO. Yet that is all Apple has to offer, iMac or eMac. Maybe 75 percent seems high until you consider it includes commercial application, office environments, classroom and school laboratories and many other such uses. The IT folks really don't like the inflexibility of an AIO from what I hear.



    Quote:



    PCI Express is going to allow the easier upgrade to faster GPU.





    Once PCI Express is on board for a Graphics card, adding X1 PCI Express slots is almost free. Just add the tiny X1 connector and a cover plate for each slot. Since Apple does not have a history of supplying standard PCI cards to this market, Apple could offer PCI Express only. This would save the cost of bridge circuitry and extra connectors for standard PCI.
Sign In or Register to comment.