This isn't meant as an attack but I do have a question for you. Sounds like you have had much success selling the Mac. How many more could you have sold if you were experienced with and used OS X?
The OS is the #1 thing to me. I don't sell computers but have nudged many thinking of switching at CompUSA, MicroCenter and even the Nebraska Furniture Mart into buying a Mac.
Sure, the design attracted them to the Mac sales area, but when you show them OS X and the apps that come preloaded with the Mac, it seems to draw them in and pricing concerns seem to lessen. Especially so in regards to the eMacs and laptops.
So how do you sell them if you personally don't really use the most important feature? Again, no harm intended.
I specifically said that I would wait for Tiger before attempting such comparisons.
Regarding iLife- Your retort is Sony gives away software too. Sony's Multimedia Line please point me to Sony's iLife. I can piecemeal a free Photo manager, a cheap recording app, a DVD burning app and video editor together but how well to they communicate together? Do my iTunes files show up for use in the DVD Recorder or iMove? Chances are unless you can find a package from one vendor this won't be the case.
Well before deciding on what will help me convince people I'd like to know how many Macs you've sold in your lifetime. I'm well above 5000. I speak from practical experience rather than theoretical. I don't get the sense that you have much sales experience because nothing is "Trivial" when discussing someones hard earned money.
Okay, waiting for Tiger is cool, but OS X should already be head and shoulders above the competition (and it is actually) so I would think you would be able to compare it against XP successfully.
I wont argue the point on the things you said about triviality and spotlight, its just a difference of opinion.
However I do disagree with your stance on software, here is what ships on the sony multimedia thing as standard:
Music PLUS Package:
SonicStage® (Digital Music Management)
SonicStage Mastering Studio? with MP3 Encoder (Digital Music Management)
Screenblast® ACID® (Digital Music Studio)
Screenblast® Sound Forge®
Photo PLUS Package:
PictureGear Studio? (Digital Photo Management)
Adobe® Photoshop Elements® (Image Editing)
Video PLUS Package:
Click to DVD?
Dvgate Plus? (Digital Video Editing)
Adobe® Premiere® LE (Professional Video Editing)
Perhaps its piecemeal, but its not underpowered in anyway.
Of all those software packages, Ive only used one, Adobe Photoshop Elements, which costs the same as iLife and has no equivilant in the iApps. Your point about the iApps is that they are well integrated, this is a great feature and should add to the user experience, this should definately be demonstrated to potential customers.
About sales, its true Ive never sold any computers and I was speaking theoretically, I have made my living by sales before and I know products rarely sell themselves. People sell themselves and the customers by the product from them because they like the person. My guess is that you have had success in sales by knowing how to sell yourself and the customers follow suite, for the internet age however, and information and opinions readily available to all, and my opinion of the american consumer, I feel the "bottom line" is increasingly important. Apple should have a decent computer for those looking at the bottom line and leave it to sales persons such as yourself to upsell to a premium or more featured model. When I say decent I dont mean "cheap", underpowered and non upgradeable like an emac.
Some people do have space constraints, I would sincerly point these people in the direction of a laptop, if you're going to get an AIO anyway a laptop is a far superior choice. A better desktop for the space constrained is a slimline style tower that can be laid horizontal with the monitor on top. Many people have said they wanted this "pizza box" style mac and I have seen the dell equivilant in use in many offices.
Dont get me wrong though, my intent was to show that i think its difficult to demonstrate the user experience that comes from using a mac. And it seems to appear I am a PC troll. That was not my intent, but the problem is, as an informed coonsumer I have very little justification for choosing an AIO desktop for any reason and I cannot afford a powermac. I am in the market for a new mac (not computer, I have access to plenty of those) but I will not spend money on a non upgradable AIO desktop, it just doesnt make sense to me.
I find it hard to believe that I didn't see this ealier. I'm sure most of you guys did though. Not only is the iMac an AIO, but so is the eMac.
Now that is obvious.
But Apple has 2 (TWO) consumer lines. Why does Apple have 2 Consumer Desktops, which both happen to be AIO. 2 Consumer lines. Both under spec'd and over priced.
1 Pro line, that is worth the money. Why not 1 consumer line? Or why not 2 pro lines?
When the iMac g4 came out, it was no longer a consumer desktop. They realized this very quickly and introduced the eMac, instead of admiting that the iMac was no longer their consumer desktop.
But they kept pushing it and pushing it.
So, I think with the new iMac they have to fix the problems. under spec'd and too expensive.
I still can't get over that Apple has 2 consumer desktops and both are AIO. There simply is NO CHOICE in consumer desktops from Apple. You get CRT AIO or LCD AIO.
This needs to be corrected!
1. Yeah. I often thought that two AIOs is excessive. Maybe the new iMac will change that and the eMac will be canned as an edu iMac replaces the eMac? Either Apple knew the eMac was going consumer from the outset or it was a response to the high price of LCDs.
2. They tried to do two pro' lines: Cube and PowerMac.
But the cube ended up costing more than the PowerMac! So, poor sales led Apple to determine there was no prosumer market when they priced the Cube alongside the PowerMac range.
If they had priced the Cube as a mid-range computer 'tween PMac and iMac then it would have succeeded. It met with rave reviews. But consumers balked at the price.
So for Hmurchison to say consumers don't balk at price is nonsense. Price is important. Sales of PCs prove otherwise.
You get what you pay for.
So why didn't consumers pay for the iMac 2? Aged design. Costly. Poor specs. A £500 Wintel computer with a 20 inch LCD glommed on it. No wonder Apple chose to hide iMac 2 sales with eMac sales.
If cost doesn't matter, why was the eMac outselling the iMac 2? (Especially when the eMac is so ugly...)
Apple has options.
They could intro' a single G5 tower range.
Priced from £895-£1395. 1.8 gig - 2.5.
That leaves the new iMac 3 to cover eMac and overlap the low end PowerMac.
If Apple can sell G5 iMacs at a lower price range then they can make profit on cheaper PowerMacs?
Apple moved the iMac range above its mandate, its remitt.
Ergo the massive drop in sales.
The original iMac had higher sales in its death throws!
The eMac IS the iMac!!!
Cubing the iMac 2 was a great initial design. Superb. But it was a disaster in terms of building on the success of the original iMac.
They dropped the iMac in the Cube price range. Unwise as history has proven. If consumer didn't swallow the Cube price...why swallow the iMac 2? A machine with less options.
Momentum lost?
AIO is fine if you're okay with throwing a machine away after two years. But it has to be cheaper AKA the eMac or original iMac to take that bet.
Herumph. Apple themselves said the iMac/eMac designs were old and overpriced in the case of the iMac. So, make of that what you will in light of iMac 3 development.
What would Apple's goals be? Cheaper? MORE AIO? Upgradeable graphics? Erhh...more striking AIO design? That will have an initial sales impact with the Apple faithful. But what about those iPod buyers who own Wintels? Will the iMac G5 appeal to them? I think that should be part of its mandate. It should say 'I'm walking out the store with you!'
I haven't anything against the original iMac AIO or not. I even wanted one. (Bar the non-upgradeable graphics...)
I loved the Cube but...
The Cube design was overkill. If it had been a simpler design. Slightly bigger and priced accordingly in the £895-£1195 range then I'm sure it would have done far, far better and headless Mac folks would be whining about when it got a G5 rather than the lack lack of headless options.
I just want Apple to Apply(!) the iPod alu mantra to a consumer desktop. Should be fantastic. A machine that gives Wintel iPod buyers a computer they can cross-grade/upgrade to.
Apple doesn't need to over complicate things. 'X' is what it is all about.
Laptops are great.
Lower the price on the PowerMac and how many Wintel people wouldn't want one?
A compelling iMac desktop offering great design and reasonable power and price should do fine.
I think Apple must lower the price bracket again to make the iMac the sales flagship it was...once.
Comments
This isn't meant as an attack but I do have a question for you. Sounds like you have had much success selling the Mac. How many more could you have sold if you were experienced with and used OS X?
The OS is the #1 thing to me. I don't sell computers but have nudged many thinking of switching at CompUSA, MicroCenter and even the Nebraska Furniture Mart into buying a Mac.
Sure, the design attracted them to the Mac sales area, but when you show them OS X and the apps that come preloaded with the Mac, it seems to draw them in and pricing concerns seem to lessen. Especially so in regards to the eMacs and laptops.
So how do you sell them if you personally don't really use the most important feature? Again, no harm intended.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Aslan
I specifically said that I would wait for Tiger before attempting such comparisons.
Regarding iLife- Your retort is Sony gives away software too. Sony's Multimedia Line please point me to Sony's iLife. I can piecemeal a free Photo manager, a cheap recording app, a DVD burning app and video editor together but how well to they communicate together? Do my iTunes files show up for use in the DVD Recorder or iMove? Chances are unless you can find a package from one vendor this won't be the case.
Well before deciding on what will help me convince people I'd like to know how many Macs you've sold in your lifetime. I'm well above 5000. I speak from practical experience rather than theoretical. I don't get the sense that you have much sales experience because nothing is "Trivial" when discussing someones hard earned money.
Okay, waiting for Tiger is cool, but OS X should already be head and shoulders above the competition (and it is actually) so I would think you would be able to compare it against XP successfully.
I wont argue the point on the things you said about triviality and spotlight, its just a difference of opinion.
However I do disagree with your stance on software, here is what ships on the sony multimedia thing as standard:
Music PLUS Package:
SonicStage® (Digital Music Management)
SonicStage Mastering Studio? with MP3 Encoder (Digital Music Management)
Screenblast® ACID® (Digital Music Studio)
Screenblast® Sound Forge®
Photo PLUS Package:
PictureGear Studio? (Digital Photo Management)
Adobe® Photoshop Elements® (Image Editing)
Video PLUS Package:
Click to DVD?
Dvgate Plus? (Digital Video Editing)
Adobe® Premiere® LE (Professional Video Editing)
Perhaps its piecemeal, but its not underpowered in anyway.
Of all those software packages, Ive only used one, Adobe Photoshop Elements, which costs the same as iLife and has no equivilant in the iApps. Your point about the iApps is that they are well integrated, this is a great feature and should add to the user experience, this should definately be demonstrated to potential customers.
About sales, its true Ive never sold any computers and I was speaking theoretically, I have made my living by sales before and I know products rarely sell themselves. People sell themselves and the customers by the product from them because they like the person. My guess is that you have had success in sales by knowing how to sell yourself and the customers follow suite, for the internet age however, and information and opinions readily available to all, and my opinion of the american consumer, I feel the "bottom line" is increasingly important. Apple should have a decent computer for those looking at the bottom line and leave it to sales persons such as yourself to upsell to a premium or more featured model. When I say decent I dont mean "cheap", underpowered and non upgradeable like an emac.
Some people do have space constraints, I would sincerly point these people in the direction of a laptop, if you're going to get an AIO anyway a laptop is a far superior choice. A better desktop for the space constrained is a slimline style tower that can be laid horizontal with the monitor on top. Many people have said they wanted this "pizza box" style mac and I have seen the dell equivilant in use in many offices.
Dont get me wrong though, my intent was to show that i think its difficult to demonstrate the user experience that comes from using a mac. And it seems to appear I am a PC troll. That was not my intent, but the problem is, as an informed coonsumer I have very little justification for choosing an AIO desktop for any reason and I cannot afford a powermac. I am in the market for a new mac (not computer, I have access to plenty of those) but I will not spend money on a non upgradable AIO desktop, it just doesnt make sense to me.
I find it hard to believe that I didn't see this ealier. I'm sure most of you guys did though. Not only is the iMac an AIO, but so is the eMac.
Now that is obvious.
But Apple has 2 (TWO) consumer lines. Why does Apple have 2 Consumer Desktops, which both happen to be AIO. 2 Consumer lines. Both under spec'd and over priced.
1 Pro line, that is worth the money. Why not 1 consumer line? Or why not 2 pro lines?
When the iMac g4 came out, it was no longer a consumer desktop. They realized this very quickly and introduced the eMac, instead of admiting that the iMac was no longer their consumer desktop.
But they kept pushing it and pushing it.
So, I think with the new iMac they have to fix the problems. under spec'd and too expensive.
I still can't get over that Apple has 2 consumer desktops and both are AIO. There simply is NO CHOICE in consumer desktops from Apple. You get CRT AIO or LCD AIO.
This needs to be corrected!
1. Yeah. I often thought that two AIOs is excessive. Maybe the new iMac will change that and the eMac will be canned as an edu iMac replaces the eMac? Either Apple knew the eMac was going consumer from the outset or it was a response to the high price of LCDs.
2. They tried to do two pro' lines: Cube and PowerMac.
But the cube ended up costing more than the PowerMac! So, poor sales led Apple to determine there was no prosumer market when they priced the Cube alongside the PowerMac range.
If they had priced the Cube as a mid-range computer 'tween PMac and iMac then it would have succeeded. It met with rave reviews. But consumers balked at the price.
So for Hmurchison to say consumers don't balk at price is nonsense. Price is important. Sales of PCs prove otherwise.
You get what you pay for.
So why didn't consumers pay for the iMac 2? Aged design. Costly. Poor specs. A £500 Wintel computer with a 20 inch LCD glommed on it. No wonder Apple chose to hide iMac 2 sales with eMac sales.
If cost doesn't matter, why was the eMac outselling the iMac 2? (Especially when the eMac is so ugly...)
Apple has options.
They could intro' a single G5 tower range.
Priced from £895-£1395. 1.8 gig - 2.5.
That leaves the new iMac 3 to cover eMac and overlap the low end PowerMac.
Easy. Maintains the original Apple grid!
Simple.
Lemon Bon Bon
If Apple can sell G5 iMacs at a lower price range then they can make profit on cheaper PowerMacs?
Apple moved the iMac range above its mandate, its remitt.
Ergo the massive drop in sales.
The original iMac had higher sales in its death throws!
The eMac IS the iMac!!!
Cubing the iMac 2 was a great initial design. Superb. But it was a disaster in terms of building on the success of the original iMac.
They dropped the iMac in the Cube price range. Unwise as history has proven. If consumer didn't swallow the Cube price...why swallow the iMac 2? A machine with less options.
Momentum lost?
AIO is fine if you're okay with throwing a machine away after two years. But it has to be cheaper AKA the eMac or original iMac to take that bet.
Herumph. Apple themselves said the iMac/eMac designs were old and overpriced in the case of the iMac. So, make of that what you will in light of iMac 3 development.
What would Apple's goals be? Cheaper? MORE AIO? Upgradeable graphics? Erhh...more striking AIO design? That will have an initial sales impact with the Apple faithful. But what about those iPod buyers who own Wintels? Will the iMac G5 appeal to them? I think that should be part of its mandate. It should say 'I'm walking out the store with you!'
I haven't anything against the original iMac AIO or not. I even wanted one. (Bar the non-upgradeable graphics...)
I loved the Cube but...
The Cube design was overkill. If it had been a simpler design. Slightly bigger and priced accordingly in the £895-£1195 range then I'm sure it would have done far, far better and headless Mac folks would be whining about when it got a G5 rather than the lack lack of headless options.
I just want Apple to Apply(!) the iPod alu mantra to a consumer desktop. Should be fantastic. A machine that gives Wintel iPod buyers a computer they can cross-grade/upgrade to.
Apple doesn't need to over complicate things. 'X' is what it is all about.
Laptops are great.
Lower the price on the PowerMac and how many Wintel people wouldn't want one?
A compelling iMac desktop offering great design and reasonable power and price should do fine.
I think Apple must lower the price bracket again to make the iMac the sales flagship it was...once.
Lemon Bon Bon