Well here is where we disagree... for about 10% of pc buys close enough is good enough...and well, apple still needs every sale they can get. If Apple suddenly released a mini g5 tomorrow will Apple's marketshare jump overnight. Nope, but Apple could jump from 2% of all new computers sold, to 3%. And this would make a difference. Overall Apple has a lot of ways to keep up margin: Applecare, .mac pro cards, ilife and so one, but just like the car dealership, you need a steal to get people in the door. Apple doesn't have that desireable product in the desktop line,
Case in point let's look at Apple notebooks: when the ibook came out, it didn't kill powerbook sales. And currently the g4 ibooks aren't killing the Albook sales. In fact the g4 ibooks sold way more notebooks than Apple expected. With the ibook costing very near to PC notebook price, a whole ton of other people looked at them. some still bought PCs, many bought ibooks, and some upgraded to powerbooks. But they wouldn't have considered it if the ibook started at $1499 instead of $1099.
The g5 mini will most likely hurt the imac/emac sales the most, but with the powermacs only having dual processors currently, we all know something is in the pipeline. This mini g5 could easily replace the sales of the powermac g4s that are lying around (the cheap and desparate for Apple's buy this horrible outdated and underperformaing desktop).
In a nutshell, a new cube won't get Apple to 10% overnight, but it just might get Apple to 3% which is a big improvement over where we are now.
PS (I am a new switcher at this point, and a former Apple hater. I think we must be meeting different people, because a good portion of PC users I have come across would happily buy an apple if the price was similar -- 20%)
I know, that was the point I was making. In order to go headless to gain marketshare, Apple would have to immediately release a >3GHz/<$1K machine. Since they obviously can't do that, Apple's consumer desktops will remain AIO to A) protect margins through forced display purchases and differentiate their products from Wintel in the only way possible.
?
And just to be clear, I personally would love a G5 mini as described in this thread. The irony so many here fail to understand is that just because a putative Cube 2 makes sense for you, doesn't mean it makes sense for Apple.
Ensign, I agree with much of what you said, (in the quote and subsequently) except for one thing.
Your logic is based on the presumption that Apple wants to increase its consumer marketshare for desktop Macintosh units.
Of course, as a business, they are hoping it will happen via consumer enlightenment/osmosis but I doubt they are actively after PC/home user cheapos. In fact, if they wanted to they could. Just make Mac OSX Intel compatible, sell out to Sony. Done deal. Mac OS X running on $700 Vaios.
Marketshare doesn't matter to Apple. Total disinterest. (As far as Macintosh desktops for consumers).
Instead, they choose to innovate and are early adopters (and abandoners: floppy) of various technologies - and make stand-out designs for form factors, which does matter to those with any sense of class or taste. I, and Apple, simply couldn't care less about the Wal-Martians that "don't care what it looks like I just want to be able to finish my work in Excel when I get home and then play Solitaire". They want crap and they'll buy crap as long as it is so cheap you can't possibly make much of a profit off of it. That route is not good for Apple as a business.
But yes, Apple innovates at the expense of having to then cut back on other things such as GHz or video memory or HD speeds etc...(conceivably not forever though. I mean, we are basically using PC parts now.)
Parity will always wax and wane. We'll all be doing Wireless Firewire a good year before Sony decides it's safe enough to adopt it. The G5/G6/etc will surpass the best Intel/AMD chips for a while and then sink back down as the PC guys crank up the frequency at the expense of your electricity bill and asbestos-lined desktop.
Better OS, nicer looking/feeling hardware, more reliability, early adoption of technologies, history of true innovation (not merely licensing)...all reasons to buy an Apple product - if somewhat subjective/biased.
GHz? Larger software market? Let them buy PCs.
PC market: A sucker's born every minute. (Buggy OS, poor software design, viruses, poor ergonomics, cheap quality hardware)
Mac market: A fool and his money are soon parted. (Higher quality overall but at a premium price).
Two sides of the coin. Neither makes much a profit. On the PC side there are just a bunch of Apples using the same hardware and software, thats all. It's not like there is a Microsoft (marketshare-wise) of PC hardware sales. It's a ton of individually smaller companies, forming a huge majority of what is the PC industry. It ain't easy for them to turn a profit and they are selling $400 PCs to Wal-Martians.
Frankly, I don't want the Mac hardware design to become just like the rest of the PC industry (except for performance parity, if possible - but it's not the primary factor for me). I wouldn't even mind performance parity at the an even higher price (as opposed to now where it's not an option at any price).
On the whole, I simply want quality and reliability, not mere performance. I think Apple agrees. The best product isn't always the best solely on performance/spec numbers. Horsepower is fine for bragging rights but sometimes you want other niceties.
But bottom line is I think Apple simply isn't even after the average home computer buyer. Nor do I think they should be (and I think they also are not interested. It's suicide short of Apple switching Mac OS X to Intel or putting Windows on Mac hardware)
Saying Apple doesn't care about marketshare is crazy. Apple is in the business to sell computers, and sell enough to make shareholders ahppy and to make more money for the company. Apple doesn't care, or need to be the number one software or hardware company in the industry.
That being said, Apple management has made it clear they would like to sell more units, and have a larger share of the industry in their target markets.
Let's talk about these zones:
Education
Government
Creatives (advertising, publishing and graphic designesrs)
Scientific applications
Video and Audio Pros
And well it is pretty clear Apple still needs to compete with the Dells, HPs and Sonys in most of these markets.
AS we all know, many schools are replacing their macs with Dells. It boils down to price in a lot of these cases. Apple will never aim to compete on price, but Apple can make the products more easy to compare to the competiton.
The days of Apple ruling the creatives are passe. You no longer have to choose to be exclusively Apple to survive as a creative. You can use a Pc get all or more of your software, and when you are dealing in Adobe all day...it doesn't really make a difference whether you are mac or pc (especially if your pc is well maintained.) If you are budget conscious you can get a high performance machine for about 30-40% less than the cost of a comparable mac. So even if you are a hard-core mac user, if your organization decides they want to save some cash, you can use windows and get your job done. For the newbies and less successful designers, or current "creative" students, PCs ar reccommended. It boils down to cost. If Apple wants to get their share in the creative market back up to 75%, there needs to be something that will keep people in the fold.....and the powermac doesn't cut it.
Video: no problems here
Audio: Apple is facing significantly growing PC competition, especially the newbies to setting up a home studio. These people can easily go PC, but would go mac if the price is right.
There is a good sized market of platform agnostic people to purchase Macs if their was a product to suit their needs (low hanging fruit). Apple can target these customers without selling their soul. We all know it, most of the componenets in our Macs are the same as the PC ones, as these parts are commodity, Apple will face less challenges in keeping up margins. But it still needs to be reasonable, and we should not get gouged for Apple hardware.
Joe Sixpack doesn't buy computers over $999. But there are a lot of desireable customers shopping the 1000-1500 where Apple doesn't have good options. These are the customers needs to target, not the average cheap guy, but the people who are looking for the video editing, digital photography and ilife features Apple is know for. But a lot of them don't want an AIO, or to spend 2k on a powermac.
Sure Apple it the "BMW of the tech industry" But BMW still makes the 1 series and 3 series for those of us not ready for our 7 series wagon. The 3 series is expensive compares to the fords, but a little bit more than the accords and camary people are shopping for. Getting the guy in a lower margin 3 series makes them more likely to upgrade to a 7-series later on.
Apple needs this approach too, there isn't a semi-luxury model availible to get you started on Macs
I just got back from my local comp usa. In the mac section was a ladder and a palette of HP monitors such that I couldn't get to the software or around the limited mac units stuffed in the furthest back corner of the store behind all of the huge televisions clamoring for the attention of the shopper.
On the other hand the ipods were right out in front of the door. all in white in a sea of grey. The IPod accessories were there too flanking them.
The laptop area didn't have any macs with the pc's you had to go to aformentioned mac section and get there by chance.
The pc area with the nifty sony (apple rip offs) computers are out front running nifty graphics loops.
++++++++++++
opinion:
I don't know if anything but the apple stores can get people into the buying mode for apples. Yes cheaper is better. But many PC people want the abiltity to add functionaltity later. The emac has the built in screen and speakers for the pc user they might want to add speakers later or a bigger monitor what happens then.
Perhaps in the comp usa's of the world there should be a serious incentive to sell macs. Give ipods away to the highest sellers of macs. The sellers don't even mention macs but they are quick to drop the price on anything if they get you to sign up for AOhell.
The i macs should be headless. let people buy 3rd party monitors. For those that want a better monitor that matches let them pay the price. Or wait and buy it later.
For some the higer priced mac eats up the budget for software (which they don't have on the mac (except for ilife) Give them a usfull bundle with office like integration and you will have a bette all in one program.
I remember the apple pitch of a few years ago where they added up the cost of their technology vs. a pc with the same technology and the mac was cheaper. Now we don't have hardware parity and a higher price.
The OS is still kick ass but linux is gaining ground in the pc market and is about to make unix/os X moot.
Apple must come up with such a concept that the PC world is left holding it's collective head in disbelief.
Clustering/xserve technology perhaps?
Voice recogniton? - probably a few more years off.
integration with .mac - it better be good (and better than aohell)
Must come up with the next cool ipod continuously and use the markte share to it's advantage by bundling the best features into the mac first then 6+ months later putting it into windows. That was the M$ method early on with apple and office.
a hdtv monitor with wireless integration and a wireless 5.1 surround system (sub and rears can be wireless powered by amp in sub) into it - that works for me and I have the place for it in my study!!
++++++++++
Ok rant over thanks for listening.
sorry.
carry on!
oh yea, apple can I please have my unlocked gsm/gprs apple phone. thanks!
Saying Apple doesn't care about marketshare is crazy. Apple is in the business to sell computers, and sell enough to make shareholders ahppy and to make more money for the company. Apple doesn't care, or need to be the number one software or hardware company in the industry.
That being said, Apple management has made it clear they would like to sell more units, and have a larger share of the industry in their target markets.
I didn't say Apple doesn't care about marketshare at all. I said Apple doesn't care about the consumer marketshare for desktop units. (The other markets, of course they care about - although perhaps not enough to tick off every gripe a person might have within a given sector).
In fact I said "Of course, as a business, they are hoping it will happen via consumer enlightenment/osmosis but I doubt they are actively after PC/home user cheapos. In fact, if they wanted to they could. Just make Mac OSX Intel compatible, sell out to Sony. Done deal. Mac OS X running on $700 Vaios. Marketshare doesn't matter to Apple. Total disinterest. (As far as Macintosh desktops for consumers)."
That last paragraph, okay, should have been less open to misinterpretation I guess: "As far as Macintosh desktops for consumers are concerned, marketshare doesn't matter to Apple. Total disinterest."
Because, as a company, if it were all about that precious bottomline, they'd have dumped Mac OS or made it available for PC - whatever path you want to follow. It hasn't been done, no signs of it being done. If that's all it were about, they'd kick Jobs out, dump Mac OS, bear some heat from burned Mac users and move on being yet another Dell clone.
Apple is a "if you build it they will come" company. They are not a "ask them what they want first, screw the dream, make exactly what they want, not what you want" company.
Vision doesn't increase marketshare - catering to the shortsighted, cost-conscious masses does.
I am an Apple shareholder. I am not a Dell or Gateway shareholder.
As a shareholder, I do not want Apple catering to the "GHz = dick size" Slashdotters and Win-dazed Solitairians.
I want the same innovation that is being spent on the iPod to be applied to the Macintosh?and largely it is. There are only a handful of things Apple can actually control to get to performance parity anyway. Better video, etc. G5 GHz is out of their control.
Ensign, I agree with much of what you said, (in the quote and subsequently) except for one thing.
Your logic is based on the presumption that Apple wants to increase its consumer marketshare for desktop Macintosh units.
Of course, as a business, they are hoping it will happen via consumer enlightenment/osmosis but I doubt they are actively after PC/home user cheapos. In fact, if they wanted to they could. Just make Mac OSX Intel compatible, sell out to Sony. Done deal. Mac OS X running on $700 Vaios.
Marketshare doesn't matter to Apple. Total disinterest. (As far as Macintosh desktops for consumers).
Instead, they choose to innovate and are early adopters (and abandoners: floppy) of various technologies - and make stand-out designs for form factors, which does matter to those with any sense of class or taste. I, and Apple, simply couldn't care less about the Wal-Martians that "don't care what it looks like I just want to be able to finish my work in Excel when I get home and then play Solitaire". They want crap and they'll buy crap as long as it is so cheap you can't possibly make much of a profit off of it. That route is not good for Apple as a business.
But yes, Apple innovates at the expense of having to then cut back on other things such as GHz or video memory or HD speeds etc...(conceivably not forever though. I mean, we are basically using PC parts now.)
Parity will always wax and wane. We'll all be doing Wireless Firewire a good year before Sony decides it's safe enough to adopt it. The G5/G6/etc will surpass the best Intel/AMD chips for a while and then sink back down as the PC guys crank up the frequency at the expense of your electricity bill and asbestos-lined desktop.
Better OS, nicer looking/feeling hardware, more reliability, early adoption of technologies, history of true innovation (not merely licensing)...all reasons to buy an Apple product - if somewhat subjective/biased.
GHz? Larger software market? Let them buy PCs.
PC market: A sucker's born every minute. (Buggy OS, poor software design, viruses, poor ergonomics, cheap quality hardware)
Mac market: A fool and his money are soon parted. (Higher quality overall but at a premium price).
Two sides of the coin. Neither makes much a profit. On the PC side there are just a bunch of Apples using the same hardware and software, thats all. It's not like there is a Microsoft (marketshare-wise) of PC hardware sales. It's a ton of individually smaller companies, forming a huge majority of what is the PC industry. It ain't easy for them to turn a profit and they are selling $400 PCs to Wal-Martians.
Frankly, I don't want the Mac hardware design to become just like the rest of the PC industry (except for performance parity, if possible - but it's not the primary factor for me). I wouldn't even mind performance parity at the an even higher price (as opposed to now where it's not an option at any price).
On the whole, I simply want quality and reliability, not mere performance. I think Apple agrees. The best product isn't always the best solely on performance/spec numbers. Horsepower is fine for bragging rights but sometimes you want other niceties.
But bottom line is I think Apple simply isn't even after the average home computer buyer. Nor do I think they should be (and I think they also are not interested. It's suicide short of Apple switching Mac OS X to Intel or putting Windows on Mac hardware)
What is going to happen then when Apple's marketshare continues to shrink to a point of insignificance to software and hardware developers? You know it's coming; companies won't write software for OS X if people aren't going to buy it.
Doesn't anyone remember Quicken announcing they were going to drop support for the Mac just a few weeks before the iMac was introduced? Steve had to show them what they were releasing shortly, and that promptly changed their mind.
It is in Apple's best interest, and its customers, to increase marketshare. The more Macs that are out there, the less we are treated like 2nd class citizens. Apple is currently being ignorant about marketshare however. They would just assume stay in the position they're in and maintain high margins than rethink their computer business model. I fail to see how this will be good for the Mac market and Apple, unless they're trying to abandon the Mac and become a music company.
I don't think that increasing marketshare necessarily means decreasing quality of machines. Diversifying their Mac lineup doesn't mean $400 pieces of crap at Wal-Mart. I see no reason why the eMac can continue to upgrade its specs and hold up the bottom end of the Mac lineup. And I don't see why they can't release a Power Mac Express to fill the mid-range gap that is a big black hole right now. The Power Mac can fill the top end with lots of power and expandability for those with no limits on price.
I believe strongly that a Power Mac Express would do well for selling to new users and existing Mac users, if pulled off right. Some don't agree with me, but that's fine, because we all have our own beliefs. The fact is, we won't know if a $1199 headless Mac would do well because Apple hasn't ever sold anything close to this. I say, it's worth a shot, even if it means smaller profits per quarter but increased unit sales.
Saying Apple doesn't care about marketshare is crazy. Apple is in the business to sell computers, and sell enough to make shareholders ahppy and to make more money for the company. Apple doesn't care, or need to be the number one software or hardware company in the industry.
That being said, Apple management has made it clear they would like to sell more units, and have a larger share of the industry in their target markets.
Did you not listen to the last financials webcast? Fred Anderson explicitly stated that Apple will not be focusing on marketshare growth, but rather revenue growth. This means lots of iPods. It also means that they would be just fine selling less and less Macs each quarter but with higher and higher margins. In reality, they are turning a blind eye to unit growth, and I find this appalling.
Did you not listen to the last financials webcast? Fred Anderson explicitly stated that Apple will not be focusing on marketshare growth, but rather revenue growth. This means lots of iPods. It also means that they would be just fine selling less and less Macs each quarter but with higher and higher margins. In reality, they are turning a blind eye to unit growth, and I find this appalling.
It just means that they feel that (due to many factors) the products that are most likely to be bought are the high-end products (PowerBooks , Dual G5, Xserve, Cinema Displays) and that everything else is irrelevant in terms of marketshare for PC unit sales (cross-platform stuff like iPods and Airport Express)?Realizing what will likely happen and preparing for it is different than flying in the face of reality and hoping for the best. They'd have to undercut themselves for a few years before gaining enough marketshare to make it worthwhile.
It means that they would be just fine selling less and less iMacs/eMacs/iBooks each quarter and more and more PowerMac G5s, PowerBooks, XServes?(if only enough to compensate for lower iMac/eMac/iBook sales). In otherwords same marketshare, more profit (and to some extent, lower costs too, in a perverse way).
No, it isn't increasing Marketshare, it is merely the horse leading the cart - as it should be. Apple sees iMacs not selling, so for the short term focus on the bigger ticket items. I don't doubt that during the lull, they will revamp the lagging models. It's ebb and flow. Sometimes the Pro line suffers, sometimes the Consumer line suffers. (There is always griping no matter what though, from all sectors, as it will ever be).
I would also agree ?IF? Apple could actually vend a Mac with the "specs people want". This means >3GHz/<$1K. Apple simply CANNOT build this machine. Let's look at an extremely generous best case scenario:
G5 mini
1.8 GHz 970fx
Single, upgradeable AGP slot
Single, upgradeable SATA hard drive
$999
Though this is a Mac geek's wet dream, 90% of sales would only go to existing Mac users who would have bought a G5 iMac or Power Mac anyway if that remained their only option.
One thing though, if CPU's were decoupled from displays like this, a Mac owner like myself might not mind upgrading more frequently than the "2-3 year cycle" that Apple is accustomed to. Displays live longer than CPU generations.
I just bought an iMac two months ago. I love it. There is no reason to turn it into a box computer and ad a separate display. I purchased it because it is a small form factor and a better screen than a lap top. I have it on a desk and can sivel the moniter to my couch. Please dont' make another Dell box that takes up a lot of space. If the size is any bigger than the current iMAC, forget it.
I figure "Express" is reserved for mobile (or at least easily portable) versions of heavier wired products and "mini" is just smaller versions of the bigger namesake, mobile or not.
I would think it'd be easier to just lop the head off an iMac like so.
Those are 2 mockups I did and as much as I'd actually like to see them, I assume that Apple will give us something much better than mere mini versions of an existing product. Just like how the iPod mini is nearly entirely different in some respects while maintaining the core features (and improving them).
That is an ugly box. Where in the heck will I put it. On my desk. No way. Under my desk. Yea Gods. No. No. No. It is not aestheic.
I just bought an iMac two months ago. I love it. There is no reason to turn it into a box computer and ad a separate display.
What are you going to do in a couple years when you want to upgrade your machine? You're going to have to buy a new monitor. Waste of money and resources, especially if you have a 17" or 20" iMac. Ouch.
Is it really worth the premium price to have a computer that is forever married to its screen just for a little more desk space? You're one of the few that think so.
What are you going to do in a couple years when you want to upgrade your machine? You're going to have to buy a new monitor. Waste of money and resources, especially if you have a 17" or 20" iMac. Ouch.
Is it really worth the premium price to have a computer that is forever married to its screen just for a little more desk space? You're one of the few that think so.
If you'll pardon a crazy "what if?":
What if Apple's new AIO model included a DVI-in port? It could share its display with any other machine, even well after the CPU's prime. Bonus for two-machine (esp. PowerBook) owners.
That sounds interesting and useful (if it could be done cost effectively), but it would partly go against the basic business model that even Apple must uphold: new machines over upgrades to existing units. Nonetheless it would be a welcome addition if possible (sort of an internal KVM switch); the fancy LCD display on the iMac is really most of its price, right?
I know it's not really that simple though. (I didn't track down the 15" display and iMac prices, it's moot at this point since they are history. Also the 17" display is widescreen, not similar enough to the iMac's 4:3 screen to allow direct comparison).
We/Apple need these questions answered:
"How many iMacs are not being sold due to the mandatory built-in screen."
vs.
"How many people will not buy an Apple display if they could get a headless iMac?"
and even:
"Would a small, clusterable headless iMac (even if a speedbumped G4 for now) compete with PowerMac G5 sales."
and:
"What percentage of potential iMac buyers didn't buy because they really wanted a 23" display or a 3rd party display but didn't want to buy a tower."
Aside from the cracks in the case and the high price, what were the Cube sales like and what were the Display sales like for that period?
I think the Cube suffered from Newton Syndrome. Initial bad PR that it couldn't shake.
i'll be honest, there is no way i am spending $2100 on a computer with in integrated 20" monitor, and not being able to use it when i need to upgrade in 2-3 years (or well when i get sick of the computer).
Do you ever wonder what happens to the switchers who bought a g3 imac. Some of them stuck with their macs and upgraded to another one, b ut quite a few said "screw it, i want a machine i can upgrade with better specs than the current imacs,' and bought a PC. the g3 imac-buyers got priced out of macs.
What are you going to do in a couple years when you want to upgrade your machine? You're going to have to buy a new monitor. Waste of money and resources, especially if you have a 17" or 20" iMac. Ouch.
Is it really worth the premium price to have a computer that is forever married to its screen just for a little more desk space? You're one of the few that think so.
I don't ever upgrade my computers. I just buy a new one when I feel I need one. The iMAC has plenty of power and memory for my needs. Upgrading is a waste of money.
The only upgrades I've done to my Macs in the past four or five years is to add memory or a larger hard drive. When I had an iMac and looked into swapping the hard drive, it was discouraging so I didn't try it.
Fact is, a lot of people ask their friends, or do research when buying a computer. They might tune in to these forums and see all kinds of people talking about how the iMacs and eMacs are not upgradable and think that's a negative and not buy one.
I think no matter how non-upgradeable Apple wants to make their computers, one should at least be able to swap the hard drive, swap the GPU and add memory with little effort. That's why a G5 Express-like computer would be a good idea.
I think no matter how non-upgradeable Apple wants to make their computers, one should at least be able to swap the hard drive, swap the GPU and add memory with little effort. That's why a G5 Express-like computer would be a good idea.
The contention in this thread seems to center around whther such a product should completely replace the present day all-in-one designs. I would argue that the two might well coexist. Gensor made his case that he likes the existing design, I say let him have it, don't take it away.
In the end this boils down to consumers wanting more choices from Apple. If Apple sticks stubbornly to the four quadrant product chart then there will always be people whose desires are not met - no matter what is in the individual boxes.
I would like to see Apple bring out a machine at a $1k - $1500 price point, without an attached display. Ideally it would appeal to new buyers that like the modularity, Mac upgraders who want to save some money, and PC switchers who have a display handy. And put the best components in it possible while staying profitable. If it's designed to the same profit margin as the iMac, Apple shouldn't care in the end which way a buyer chooses, the profit would be the same (minus NRE costs). Simply put I think it's time they offered more choices as a way to be attractive to more potential buyers.
Comments
Case in point let's look at Apple notebooks: when the ibook came out, it didn't kill powerbook sales. And currently the g4 ibooks aren't killing the Albook sales. In fact the g4 ibooks sold way more notebooks than Apple expected. With the ibook costing very near to PC notebook price, a whole ton of other people looked at them. some still bought PCs, many bought ibooks, and some upgraded to powerbooks. But they wouldn't have considered it if the ibook started at $1499 instead of $1099.
The g5 mini will most likely hurt the imac/emac sales the most, but with the powermacs only having dual processors currently, we all know something is in the pipeline. This mini g5 could easily replace the sales of the powermac g4s that are lying around (the cheap and desparate for Apple's buy this horrible outdated and underperformaing desktop).
In a nutshell, a new cube won't get Apple to 10% overnight, but it just might get Apple to 3% which is a big improvement over where we are now.
PS (I am a new switcher at this point, and a former Apple hater. I think we must be meeting different people, because a good portion of PC users I have come across would happily buy an apple if the price was similar -- 20%)
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I know, that was the point I was making. In order to go headless to gain marketshare, Apple would have to immediately release a >3GHz/<$1K machine. Since they obviously can't do that, Apple's consumer desktops will remain AIO to A) protect margins through forced display purchases and
?
And just to be clear, I personally would love a G5 mini as described in this thread. The irony so many here fail to understand is that just because a putative Cube 2 makes sense for you, doesn't mean it makes sense for Apple.
Ensign, I agree with much of what you said, (in the quote and subsequently) except for one thing.
Your logic is based on the presumption that Apple wants to increase its consumer marketshare for desktop Macintosh units.
Of course, as a business, they are hoping it will happen via consumer enlightenment/osmosis but I doubt they are actively after PC/home user cheapos. In fact, if they wanted to they could. Just make Mac OSX Intel compatible, sell out to Sony. Done deal. Mac OS X running on $700 Vaios.
Marketshare doesn't matter to Apple. Total disinterest. (As far as Macintosh desktops for consumers).
Instead, they choose to innovate and are early adopters (and abandoners: floppy) of various technologies - and make stand-out designs for form factors, which does matter to those with any sense of class or taste. I, and Apple, simply couldn't care less about the Wal-Martians that "don't care what it looks like I just want to be able to finish my work in Excel when I get home and then play Solitaire". They want crap and they'll buy crap as long as it is so cheap you can't possibly make much of a profit off of it. That route is not good for Apple as a business.
But yes, Apple innovates at the expense of having to then cut back on other things such as GHz or video memory or HD speeds etc...(conceivably not forever though. I mean, we are basically using PC parts now.)
Parity will always wax and wane. We'll all be doing Wireless Firewire a good year before Sony decides it's safe enough to adopt it. The G5/G6/etc will surpass the best Intel/AMD chips for a while and then sink back down as the PC guys crank up the frequency at the expense of your electricity bill and asbestos-lined desktop.
Better OS, nicer looking/feeling hardware, more reliability, early adoption of technologies, history of true innovation (not merely licensing)...all reasons to buy an Apple product - if somewhat subjective/biased.
GHz? Larger software market? Let them buy PCs.
PC market: A sucker's born every minute. (Buggy OS, poor software design, viruses, poor ergonomics, cheap quality hardware)
Mac market: A fool and his money are soon parted. (Higher quality overall but at a premium price).
Two sides of the coin. Neither makes much a profit. On the PC side there are just a bunch of Apples using the same hardware and software, thats all. It's not like there is a Microsoft (marketshare-wise) of PC hardware sales. It's a ton of individually smaller companies, forming a huge majority of what is the PC industry. It ain't easy for them to turn a profit and they are selling $400 PCs to Wal-Martians.
Frankly, I don't want the Mac hardware design to become just like the rest of the PC industry (except for performance parity, if possible - but it's not the primary factor for me). I wouldn't even mind performance parity at the an even higher price (as opposed to now where it's not an option at any price).
On the whole, I simply want quality and reliability, not mere performance. I think Apple agrees. The best product isn't always the best solely on performance/spec numbers. Horsepower is fine for bragging rights but sometimes you want other niceties.
But bottom line is I think Apple simply isn't even after the average home computer buyer. Nor do I think they should be (and I think they also are not interested. It's suicide short of Apple switching Mac OS X to Intel or putting Windows on Mac hardware)
That being said, Apple management has made it clear they would like to sell more units, and have a larger share of the industry in their target markets.
Let's talk about these zones:
Education
Government
Creatives (advertising, publishing and graphic designesrs)
Scientific applications
Video and Audio Pros
And well it is pretty clear Apple still needs to compete with the Dells, HPs and Sonys in most of these markets.
AS we all know, many schools are replacing their macs with Dells. It boils down to price in a lot of these cases. Apple will never aim to compete on price, but Apple can make the products more easy to compare to the competiton.
The days of Apple ruling the creatives are passe. You no longer have to choose to be exclusively Apple to survive as a creative. You can use a Pc get all or more of your software, and when you are dealing in Adobe all day...it doesn't really make a difference whether you are mac or pc (especially if your pc is well maintained.) If you are budget conscious you can get a high performance machine for about 30-40% less than the cost of a comparable mac. So even if you are a hard-core mac user, if your organization decides they want to save some cash, you can use windows and get your job done. For the newbies and less successful designers, or current "creative" students, PCs ar reccommended. It boils down to cost. If Apple wants to get their share in the creative market back up to 75%, there needs to be something that will keep people in the fold.....and the powermac doesn't cut it.
Video: no problems here
Audio: Apple is facing significantly growing PC competition, especially the newbies to setting up a home studio. These people can easily go PC, but would go mac if the price is right.
There is a good sized market of platform agnostic people to purchase Macs if their was a product to suit their needs (low hanging fruit). Apple can target these customers without selling their soul. We all know it, most of the componenets in our Macs are the same as the PC ones, as these parts are commodity, Apple will face less challenges in keeping up margins. But it still needs to be reasonable, and we should not get gouged for Apple hardware.
Joe Sixpack doesn't buy computers over $999. But there are a lot of desireable customers shopping the 1000-1500 where Apple doesn't have good options. These are the customers needs to target, not the average cheap guy, but the people who are looking for the video editing, digital photography and ilife features Apple is know for. But a lot of them don't want an AIO, or to spend 2k on a powermac.
Sure Apple it the "BMW of the tech industry" But BMW still makes the 1 series and 3 series for those of us not ready for our 7 series wagon. The 3 series is expensive compares to the fords, but a little bit more than the accords and camary people are shopping for. Getting the guy in a lower margin 3 series makes them more likely to upgrade to a 7-series later on.
Apple needs this approach too, there isn't a semi-luxury model availible to get you started on Macs
I just got back from my local comp usa. In the mac section was a ladder and a palette of HP monitors such that I couldn't get to the software or around the limited mac units stuffed in the furthest back corner of the store behind all of the huge televisions clamoring for the attention of the shopper.
On the other hand the ipods were right out in front of the door. all in white in a sea of grey. The IPod accessories were there too flanking them.
The laptop area didn't have any macs with the pc's you had to go to aformentioned mac section and get there by chance.
The pc area with the nifty sony (apple rip offs) computers are out front running nifty graphics loops.
++++++++++++
opinion:
I don't know if anything but the apple stores can get people into the buying mode for apples. Yes cheaper is better. But many PC people want the abiltity to add functionaltity later. The emac has the built in screen and speakers for the pc user they might want to add speakers later or a bigger monitor what happens then.
Perhaps in the comp usa's of the world there should be a serious incentive to sell macs. Give ipods away to the highest sellers of macs. The sellers don't even mention macs but they are quick to drop the price on anything if they get you to sign up for AOhell.
The i macs should be headless. let people buy 3rd party monitors. For those that want a better monitor that matches let them pay the price. Or wait and buy it later.
For some the higer priced mac eats up the budget for software (which they don't have on the mac (except for ilife) Give them a usfull bundle with office like integration and you will have a bette all in one program.
I remember the apple pitch of a few years ago where they added up the cost of their technology vs. a pc with the same technology and the mac was cheaper. Now we don't have hardware parity and a higher price.
The OS is still kick ass but linux is gaining ground in the pc market and is about to make unix/os X moot.
Apple must come up with such a concept that the PC world is left holding it's collective head in disbelief.
Clustering/xserve technology perhaps?
Voice recogniton? - probably a few more years off.
integration with .mac - it better be good (and better than aohell)
Must come up with the next cool ipod continuously and use the markte share to it's advantage by bundling the best features into the mac first then 6+ months later putting it into windows. That was the M$ method early on with apple and office.
a hdtv monitor with wireless integration and a wireless 5.1 surround system (sub and rears can be wireless powered by amp in sub) into it - that works for me and I have the place for it in my study!!
++++++++++
Ok rant over thanks for listening.
sorry.
carry on!
oh yea, apple can I please have my unlocked gsm/gprs apple phone. thanks!
Originally posted by jade
Saying Apple doesn't care about marketshare is crazy. Apple is in the business to sell computers, and sell enough to make shareholders ahppy and to make more money for the company. Apple doesn't care, or need to be the number one software or hardware company in the industry.
That being said, Apple management has made it clear they would like to sell more units, and have a larger share of the industry in their target markets.
I didn't say Apple doesn't care about marketshare at all. I said Apple doesn't care about the consumer marketshare for desktop units. (The other markets, of course they care about - although perhaps not enough to tick off every gripe a person might have within a given sector).
In fact I said "Of course, as a business, they are hoping it will happen via consumer enlightenment/osmosis but I doubt they are actively after PC/home user cheapos. In fact, if they wanted to they could. Just make Mac OSX Intel compatible, sell out to Sony. Done deal. Mac OS X running on $700 Vaios. Marketshare doesn't matter to Apple. Total disinterest. (As far as Macintosh desktops for consumers)."
That last paragraph, okay, should have been less open to misinterpretation I guess: "As far as Macintosh desktops for consumers are concerned, marketshare doesn't matter to Apple. Total disinterest."
Because, as a company, if it were all about that precious bottomline, they'd have dumped Mac OS or made it available for PC - whatever path you want to follow. It hasn't been done, no signs of it being done. If that's all it were about, they'd kick Jobs out, dump Mac OS, bear some heat from burned Mac users and move on being yet another Dell clone.
Apple is a "if you build it they will come" company. They are not a "ask them what they want first, screw the dream, make exactly what they want, not what you want" company.
Vision doesn't increase marketshare - catering to the shortsighted, cost-conscious masses does.
I am an Apple shareholder. I am not a Dell or Gateway shareholder.
As a shareholder, I do not want Apple catering to the "GHz = dick size" Slashdotters and Win-dazed Solitairians.
I want the same innovation that is being spent on the iPod to be applied to the Macintosh?and largely it is. There are only a handful of things Apple can actually control to get to performance parity anyway. Better video, etc. G5 GHz is out of their control.
Originally posted by johnq
Ensign, I agree with much of what you said, (in the quote and subsequently) except for one thing.
Your logic is based on the presumption that Apple wants to increase its consumer marketshare for desktop Macintosh units.
Of course, as a business, they are hoping it will happen via consumer enlightenment/osmosis but I doubt they are actively after PC/home user cheapos. In fact, if they wanted to they could. Just make Mac OSX Intel compatible, sell out to Sony. Done deal. Mac OS X running on $700 Vaios.
Marketshare doesn't matter to Apple. Total disinterest. (As far as Macintosh desktops for consumers).
Instead, they choose to innovate and are early adopters (and abandoners: floppy) of various technologies - and make stand-out designs for form factors, which does matter to those with any sense of class or taste. I, and Apple, simply couldn't care less about the Wal-Martians that "don't care what it looks like I just want to be able to finish my work in Excel when I get home and then play Solitaire". They want crap and they'll buy crap as long as it is so cheap you can't possibly make much of a profit off of it. That route is not good for Apple as a business.
But yes, Apple innovates at the expense of having to then cut back on other things such as GHz or video memory or HD speeds etc...(conceivably not forever though. I mean, we are basically using PC parts now.)
Parity will always wax and wane. We'll all be doing Wireless Firewire a good year before Sony decides it's safe enough to adopt it. The G5/G6/etc will surpass the best Intel/AMD chips for a while and then sink back down as the PC guys crank up the frequency at the expense of your electricity bill and asbestos-lined desktop.
Better OS, nicer looking/feeling hardware, more reliability, early adoption of technologies, history of true innovation (not merely licensing)...all reasons to buy an Apple product - if somewhat subjective/biased.
GHz? Larger software market? Let them buy PCs.
PC market: A sucker's born every minute. (Buggy OS, poor software design, viruses, poor ergonomics, cheap quality hardware)
Mac market: A fool and his money are soon parted. (Higher quality overall but at a premium price).
Two sides of the coin. Neither makes much a profit. On the PC side there are just a bunch of Apples using the same hardware and software, thats all. It's not like there is a Microsoft (marketshare-wise) of PC hardware sales. It's a ton of individually smaller companies, forming a huge majority of what is the PC industry. It ain't easy for them to turn a profit and they are selling $400 PCs to Wal-Martians.
Frankly, I don't want the Mac hardware design to become just like the rest of the PC industry (except for performance parity, if possible - but it's not the primary factor for me). I wouldn't even mind performance parity at the an even higher price (as opposed to now where it's not an option at any price).
On the whole, I simply want quality and reliability, not mere performance. I think Apple agrees. The best product isn't always the best solely on performance/spec numbers. Horsepower is fine for bragging rights but sometimes you want other niceties.
But bottom line is I think Apple simply isn't even after the average home computer buyer. Nor do I think they should be (and I think they also are not interested. It's suicide short of Apple switching Mac OS X to Intel or putting Windows on Mac hardware)
What is going to happen then when Apple's marketshare continues to shrink to a point of insignificance to software and hardware developers? You know it's coming; companies won't write software for OS X if people aren't going to buy it.
Doesn't anyone remember Quicken announcing they were going to drop support for the Mac just a few weeks before the iMac was introduced? Steve had to show them what they were releasing shortly, and that promptly changed their mind.
It is in Apple's best interest, and its customers, to increase marketshare. The more Macs that are out there, the less we are treated like 2nd class citizens. Apple is currently being ignorant about marketshare however. They would just assume stay in the position they're in and maintain high margins than rethink their computer business model. I fail to see how this will be good for the Mac market and Apple, unless they're trying to abandon the Mac and become a music company.
I don't think that increasing marketshare necessarily means decreasing quality of machines. Diversifying their Mac lineup doesn't mean $400 pieces of crap at Wal-Mart. I see no reason why the eMac can continue to upgrade its specs and hold up the bottom end of the Mac lineup. And I don't see why they can't release a Power Mac Express to fill the mid-range gap that is a big black hole right now. The Power Mac can fill the top end with lots of power and expandability for those with no limits on price.
I believe strongly that a Power Mac Express would do well for selling to new users and existing Mac users, if pulled off right. Some don't agree with me, but that's fine, because we all have our own beliefs. The fact is, we won't know if a $1199 headless Mac would do well because Apple hasn't ever sold anything close to this. I say, it's worth a shot, even if it means smaller profits per quarter but increased unit sales.
Originally posted by jade
Saying Apple doesn't care about marketshare is crazy. Apple is in the business to sell computers, and sell enough to make shareholders ahppy and to make more money for the company. Apple doesn't care, or need to be the number one software or hardware company in the industry.
That being said, Apple management has made it clear they would like to sell more units, and have a larger share of the industry in their target markets.
Did you not listen to the last financials webcast? Fred Anderson explicitly stated that Apple will not be focusing on marketshare growth, but rather revenue growth. This means lots of iPods. It also means that they would be just fine selling less and less Macs each quarter but with higher and higher margins. In reality, they are turning a blind eye to unit growth, and I find this appalling.
Originally posted by bborofka
Did you not listen to the last financials webcast? Fred Anderson explicitly stated that Apple will not be focusing on marketshare growth, but rather revenue growth. This means lots of iPods. It also means that they would be just fine selling less and less Macs each quarter but with higher and higher margins. In reality, they are turning a blind eye to unit growth, and I find this appalling.
It just means that they feel that (due to many factors) the products that are most likely to be bought are the high-end products (PowerBooks , Dual G5, Xserve, Cinema Displays) and that everything else is irrelevant in terms of marketshare for PC unit sales (cross-platform stuff like iPods and Airport Express)?Realizing what will likely happen and preparing for it is different than flying in the face of reality and hoping for the best. They'd have to undercut themselves for a few years before gaining enough marketshare to make it worthwhile.
It means that they would be just fine selling less and less iMacs/eMacs/iBooks each quarter and more and more PowerMac G5s, PowerBooks, XServes?(if only enough to compensate for lower iMac/eMac/iBook sales). In otherwords same marketshare, more profit (and to some extent, lower costs too, in a perverse way).
No, it isn't increasing Marketshare, it is merely the horse leading the cart - as it should be. Apple sees iMacs not selling, so for the short term focus on the bigger ticket items. I don't doubt that during the lull, they will revamp the lagging models. It's ebb and flow. Sometimes the Pro line suffers, sometimes the Consumer line suffers. (There is always griping no matter what though, from all sectors, as it will ever be).
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I agree.
I would also agree ?IF? Apple could actually vend a Mac with the "specs people want". This means >3GHz/<$1K. Apple simply CANNOT build this machine. Let's look at an extremely generous best case scenario:
G5 mini
1.8 GHz 970fx
Single, upgradeable AGP slot
Single, upgradeable SATA hard drive
$999
Though this is a Mac geek's wet dream, 90% of sales would only go to existing Mac users who would have bought a G5 iMac or Power Mac anyway if that remained their only option.
One thing though, if CPU's were decoupled from displays like this, a Mac owner like myself might not mind upgrading more frequently than the "2-3 year cycle" that Apple is accustomed to. Displays live longer than CPU generations.
Originally posted by johnq
(Caution: nothing new below, just my usual mockups)
You forgot, since it is aluminum, why not anodize them to the iPod mini colors?
She comes in colors.
I figure "Express" is reserved for mobile (or at least easily portable) versions of heavier wired products and "mini" is just smaller versions of the bigger namesake, mobile or not.
I would think it'd be easier to just lop the head off an iMac like so.
Those are 2 mockups I did and as much as I'd actually like to see them, I assume that Apple will give us something much better than mere mini versions of an existing product. Just like how the iPod mini is nearly entirely different in some respects while maintaining the core features (and improving them).
That is an ugly box. Where in the heck will I put it. On my desk. No way. Under my desk. Yea Gods. No. No. No. It is not aestheic.
Originally posted by gensor
I just bought an iMac two months ago. I love it. There is no reason to turn it into a box computer and ad a separate display.
What are you going to do in a couple years when you want to upgrade your machine? You're going to have to buy a new monitor. Waste of money and resources, especially if you have a 17" or 20" iMac. Ouch.
Is it really worth the premium price to have a computer that is forever married to its screen just for a little more desk space? You're one of the few that think so.
Those are ugly iPod minis. Where in the heck will I put it? On my belt? No way. On my desk? Yea Gods. No. No. No. It is not aesthetic.
See?
Point is, some people like colors, even for desktops.
They always have the white/grey/neutral versions for the?other people.
Originally posted by bborofka
What are you going to do in a couple years when you want to upgrade your machine? You're going to have to buy a new monitor. Waste of money and resources, especially if you have a 17" or 20" iMac. Ouch.
Is it really worth the premium price to have a computer that is forever married to its screen just for a little more desk space? You're one of the few that think so.
If you'll pardon a crazy "what if?":
What if Apple's new AIO model included a DVI-in port? It could share its display with any other machine, even well after the CPU's prime. Bonus for two-machine (esp. PowerBook) owners.
Thoughts?
$2,199.00 : 20" iMac
$1,299.00 : 20" Cinema Display
--------------------------
$900.00 : Headless iMac
I know it's not really that simple though. (I didn't track down the 15" display and iMac prices, it's moot at this point since they are history. Also the 17" display is widescreen, not similar enough to the iMac's 4:3 screen to allow direct comparison).
We/Apple need these questions answered:
"How many iMacs are not being sold due to the mandatory built-in screen."
vs.
"How many people will not buy an Apple display if they could get a headless iMac?"
and even:
"Would a small, clusterable headless iMac (even if a speedbumped G4 for now) compete with PowerMac G5 sales."
and:
"What percentage of potential iMac buyers didn't buy because they really wanted a 23" display or a 3rd party display but didn't want to buy a tower."
Aside from the cracks in the case and the high price, what were the Cube sales like and what were the Display sales like for that period?
I think the Cube suffered from Newton Syndrome. Initial bad PR that it couldn't shake.
Do you ever wonder what happens to the switchers who bought a g3 imac. Some of them stuck with their macs and upgraded to another one, b ut quite a few said "screw it, i want a machine i can upgrade with better specs than the current imacs,' and bought a PC. the g3 imac-buyers got priced out of macs.
Originally posted by bborofka
What are you going to do in a couple years when you want to upgrade your machine? You're going to have to buy a new monitor. Waste of money and resources, especially if you have a 17" or 20" iMac. Ouch.
Is it really worth the premium price to have a computer that is forever married to its screen just for a little more desk space? You're one of the few that think so.
I don't ever upgrade my computers. I just buy a new one when I feel I need one. The iMAC has plenty of power and memory for my needs. Upgrading is a waste of money.
Fact is, a lot of people ask their friends, or do research when buying a computer. They might tune in to these forums and see all kinds of people talking about how the iMacs and eMacs are not upgradable and think that's a negative and not buy one.
I think no matter how non-upgradeable Apple wants to make their computers, one should at least be able to swap the hard drive, swap the GPU and add memory with little effort. That's why a G5 Express-like computer would be a good idea.
Originally posted by iDave
I think no matter how non-upgradeable Apple wants to make their computers, one should at least be able to swap the hard drive, swap the GPU and add memory with little effort. That's why a G5 Express-like computer would be a good idea.
The contention in this thread seems to center around whther such a product should completely replace the present day all-in-one designs. I would argue that the two might well coexist. Gensor made his case that he likes the existing design, I say let him have it, don't take it away.
In the end this boils down to consumers wanting more choices from Apple. If Apple sticks stubbornly to the four quadrant product chart then there will always be people whose desires are not met - no matter what is in the individual boxes.
I would like to see Apple bring out a machine at a $1k - $1500 price point, without an attached display. Ideally it would appeal to new buyers that like the modularity, Mac upgraders who want to save some money, and PC switchers who have a display handy. And put the best components in it possible while staying profitable. If it's designed to the same profit margin as the iMac, Apple shouldn't care in the end which way a buyer chooses, the profit would be the same (minus NRE costs). Simply put I think it's time they offered more choices as a way to be attractive to more potential buyers.