First, the reason why this comes up every frickin' week is because their are lots of people, in lots of forums, on lots of websites who think $2000 for a brand-new headless mac is asinine.
Now... the G5 iMac has shown Apple can produce an interesting product for $1300. So....
--Dump the iMac's pretty plastics.
--Dump it's complicated cooling (necessitated largely because of the iMac's tight squeeze.
--Dump the monitor.
--Dump iLife and make it a $49 dollar upgrade.
--Sell it only online.
Now... Does anyone doubt that Apple could make money on the above machine at $899?
The two objections raised ad nauseum are cannabilization and brand dilution.
I frankly don't think cannabilization is an issue. Professionals want better graphics, faster Firewire, gigabit ethernet, SuperDrive, a faster FSB, and, ultimately, faster CPUs. IF cannabilization became an issue, there is an extrordinarily easy way for Apple to stop it... raise the price of its white box as needed.
As for brand dilution, the Apple white-box wouldn't be an Apple. Rather it would be sold by a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple, e.g., PowerComputing. To put it in perspective, The fact that Fiat owns Ferrari, Volkwagen owns Bentley,Ford owns Aston-Martin, Toyota owns Lexus and Honda owns Acura does little to dilute Ferrari, Bentley, Aston-Martin, Lexus, or Acura.
1) It was a concern the articles took seriously and for the sake of argument I'm willing to take it seriously.
2) I don't think anyone is worried about Apple's brand in India. It's elsewhere that people are worried about. And they're worried because the company has said they want to keep the brand high end, which precludes the ability to sell a low end box.
I guess I think staying "high end" is hardly a worry. The point is to stay high quality and to innovate. If Apple were to merely stay "high end," it would not have eMacs or iBooks or iPodmini's.
If Apple made innovative, but less expensive computers in China or India, how would that affect perceptions? Would Mac owners flee to Sony's in droves? Hardly. Would switchers decide that they would stay with Dell? No, they actually might think an increased world-wide market share would make their Apple investment a little more secure.
There is no reason for "white boxes" to be junky or low quality. That is a condescending view of both China and India. Quality boxes that can take unkind transportation systems, inconsistent voltage in power grids, cases that can handle high dust and humidiy situations and an OS that can deal with a wide number of fonts with ease ... those are what can sell overseas and those can be made by in-country partners, at a good price with good quality control. It wouldn't take long for people there to see which computers hold up better and thus create an impressive reorder rate. And in developing countries, it will be the re-order rate that will be important. The key is to get boxes out there soon.
It is basically taking the idea behind the original iBook - simple, colorful, rugged, etc. and learning about local marketing needs. And guess what? Apple might learn something by being involved in the mix!
I guess I don't have alot of patience for marketing wonks who are overly sensitive (not necesssarily anyone on this forum) to over-emphasizing "perception" rather than fact.
First off someone said they should release OSX for x86 because it would be another retail os instead of windows. Well Sun already has an alternative with Solaris for x86 and although not as visually polished as mac os x it is still a good OS.
I think it would bring a lot of money to apple if they releaced os x for x86. But it would be a dumb move for computing in general.
The x86 arch needs to die. The power arch is more than just apple. I think IBM needs to release power desktops and run linux on them or do i dare say it windows on powerpc.. Actually Solaris on power may be comming soon too.
irst, the reason why this comes up every frickin' week is because their are lots of people, in lots of forums, on lots of websites who think $2000 for a brand-new headless mac is asinine.
Now... the G5 iMac has shown Apple can produce an interesting product for $1300. So....
--Dump the iMac's pretty plastics.
--Dump it's complicated cooling (necessitated largely because of the iMac's tight squeeze.
--Dump the monitor.
--Dump iLife and make it a $49 dollar upgrade.
--Sell it only online.
Now... Does anyone doubt that Apple could make money on the above machine at $899?
The two objections raised ad nauseum are cannabilization and brand dilution.
I frankly don't think cannabilization is an issue. Professionals want better graphics, faster Firewire, gigabit ethernet, SuperDrive, a faster FSB, and, ultimately, faster CPUs. IF cannabilization became an issue, there is an extrordinarily easy way for Apple to stop it... raise the price of its white box as needed.
As for brand dilution, the Apple white-box wouldn't be an Apple. Rather it would be sold by a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple, e.g., PowerComputing. To put it in perspective, The fact that Fiat owns Ferrari, Volkwagen owns Bentley,Ford owns Aston-Martin, Toyota owns Lexus and Honda owns Acura does little to dilute Ferrari, Bentley, Aston-Martin, Lexus, or Acura.
I'd say there are advantages when the hardware people can coordinate with the OS people. Also, spinning off a hardware division would only open up bargain basement machines based on last year's technology. These would erode imac/iBook sales and the customer service would be worse than Apple's. Would these boxes even be sold at the Apple stores?
What everyone wants is a PowEMac. This is the machine to the eMac as the PowerMac is to the iMac. Perhaps eCube is a better name? As long as the graphics card is upgradable the jackals will be happy.
I'd say there are advantages when the hardware people can coordinate with the OS people. Also, spinning off a hardware division would only open up bargain basement machines based on last year's technology. These would erode imac/iBook sales and the customer service would be worse than Apple's. Would these boxes even be sold at the Apple stores?
Some of these concerns were covered in the articles, like differentiating the products enough so that they boxes wouldn't attract the EDU market. Also, since it would be a subsidiary of Apple, the hardware and software people would stil coordinate perfectly well.
Personally I hadn't even thought about the China/India part. That is a boom waiting to happen: high quality durable and inexpensive computers. Again though, this has to be something less than the current Macs. Only a G3, no integrated video card, VGA only, something to keep costs down.
That is a boom waiting to happen: high quality durable and inexpensive computers. Again though, this has to be something less than the current Macs. Only a G3, no integrated video card, VGA only, something to keep costs down.
There is no reason that this equation of 'durable and high quality' can't be a Mac.
Take away the screen in the eMac and provide integrated craphics with AGP slot and you'd have such a proposition. For cheaper.
As for the Boom Tube. Will Apple be happy with niche in said market?
This could be a chance to change history. It won't come again.
If Apple can let go of their 'only' AIO consumer ideas then they could win more customers. They aint proud when it comes to Edu'. Look at how much the new iMac with naff Geforce 4 mx 32 meg edition costs.
Apple can do it...ie if they're desperate for marketshare in education for example...
...and if Apple can't make it cheap enough, hand it over a Chinese wholly owned Power Computing subsiduary that could generate huge profits and end up beating Dell at their own game.
A Gateway/eMachine comparison is expected, but if Apple spins a unit off the new unit would still fight for sales. I doubt Apple would place the bargain machines on the Apple Store site or retail stores. So where would these machines be sold? BestBuy? CompUSA? That's laughable as Apple has a hard enough time there already.
Yes, a low-end tower is needed. But a spinoff just adds more overhead than adding a few new Mac SKUs.
If Apple ever offers a low end OS X computer without an integrated display, it needs to be an Apple product in my opinion, not sold by some subsidiary like Power Computing.
Say a small business owner is thinking about switching, and walks into an Apple store to see what they offer. Let's say the need is for a server plus 10 desktop computers, for general office use - nothing special. A very low cost Apple desktop might make the package attractive. Yet if all that Apple has to offer for the desktop is an eMac, it may get a polite, "No thank you, I have 10 perfectly good Dell LCD displays already."
Apple could give their lowest end computers a different name than Macintosh, but it should stay a part of what Apple sells. Not that long ago Apple sold several Performa models, but I would never suggest resurrecting that name again.
I frankly don't think cannabilization is an issue. Professionals want better graphics, faster Firewire, gigabit ethernet, SuperDrive, a faster FSB, and, ultimately, faster CPUs. IF cannabilization became an issue, there is an extrordinarily easy way for Apple to stop it... raise the price of its white box as needed.
If you are only going to sell one white box then what is the point? The company selling the box would be so limited as to be usless. Apple would be better off simply making a cheap computer. Quite why the eMac doesnt qualify mystifies me. You dont think that they are selling them super cheap into education? They could do the same thing in other markets ( India, China ). Nobody is standing around complaining that an Edu account can buy eMacs for half of retail ( guess ). Now, as to the suitability of eMacs, thats another issue. My point being, a white box manufacturer needs to be able to produce a range of systems, and in so doing, be capable of cannibalizing Apple. Apple's hook needs to be the value add. The white box systems wouldnt be eligible for Applecare, no phone support, whatever. No marketing.
Quote:
As for brand dilution, the Apple white-box wouldn't be an Apple. Rather it would be sold by a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple, e.g., PowerComputing. To put it in perspective, The fact that Fiat owns Ferrari, Volkwagen owns Bentley,Ford owns Aston-Martin, Toyota owns Lexus and Honda owns Acura does little to dilute Ferrari, Bentley, Aston-Martin, Lexus, or Acura.
Well, I think your examples arent appropriate. Many of those marques are aquired through purchases. A lot of people have little awareness of the ebb and flow of marque ownership ( eg: Fiat owns Ferrari, who knew ). But one is a prime example of brand dilution. In New Zealand, and in the UK, it is well known that Lexus is Toyota's luxury marque. And it carries a corresponding stygma. To own a Lexus is to own a 'poor mans' car ( cost not corresponding ). Also of note is that Acuras and Infinitis in Australia and New Zealand are simply sold as Hondas and Nissans. They are simply high end vehicles. Apple could manage a white box subsidiary. But I dont think that the reasons really exist. A white box would not possess the strength of brand that Apple does.
Step back and examine the real issues:
a) lack of choice in the line up.
b) absence of a low end box.
I think (b) is satisfied by the eMac. Apple simply need to have the desire to chase the market. Unfortunately I see Apple as being a very Ameriocentric company, and it really hurts their international potential. This is a cultural issue. I dont think that they can fix it with a white box product. It affects much more than machine prices, it touches OS details that arent something a white box subsidiary could do anything about.
(a) is really something else. A white box sub. could really open up choice, but I think cannibalisation is a real risk then ( just as happened with the clones ). Limiting the subs markets doesnt help the problem in the states. I dont think Apple see the issue, once again cultural, because they cant meet demand ( mostly because of supply issues, not popular products ). As long as Apple can only manufacture limited quantities a white box sub will compete for the same manufacturing resources, and cannibalise Apples profits. My one hope is that Apple know this, and when supplies of cpus etc open up they will also widen the product line.
If you are only going to sell one white box then what is the point? The company selling the box would be so limited as to be usless. Apple would be better off simply making a cheap computer. Quite why the eMac doesnt qualify mystifies me.
Do you know how much an eMac weighs and how large it is? That alone should be reason enough to ask for a smaller machine. I think the eMac has a market but if Apple is to ever tackle the low end arena I think doing so as a subsidiary is the best way to get it done.
. . . I think the eMac has a market but if Apple is to ever tackle the low end arena I think doing so as a subsidiary is the best way to get it done.
Could you tell us, what advantages would there be for Apple in creating a subsidiary, rather than simply creating a new product line and calling it something other than Macintosh? Is it not enough to keep the Macintosh name associated with a certain level of performance and features? A new name for a new product line would set a low-end OS X computer apart from the Macintosh. I don't think Cadillac sales are hurt by the Chevrolet, and everyone knows these are both General Motors products. Of course, sheer size of these divisions makes it desirable to make them separate business units.
The idea of a wholly owned subsidiary is a response to those who claim a "cheap" mac would dilute apple's brand image. My point is simple... there is an easy solution to that supposed problem. For those of you who DON'T think dilution would be a problem...fine: sell the cheap mac as a mac. If you DO think a white box mac would dilute Apple's image, then peel off the Apple logos and re-brand it.
As for the comment that you can't sell just one kind of computer...that's silly in so many ways. But in any event, you'd probably sell a couple of different models based upon essentially identical components. E.g. a bare bones 1.6 G5, a 1.8 G5 with upgrades all around, and a 2.0 G5 with pin-stripping. Voila! The X-16, the Y-18 and the ultimate Z-20. Happy?
So on to the eMac... Perhaps people haven't heard the past 5 years of screaming...
WE...DON'T...WANT...AN...AIO....
With that said, I'll just skip over the fact that the eMac is running a 1.25 g4 with hamster-driven FSB and 17" of diagonal goodness. I had a 17" monitor for my si!
But let's return to Apple's true idiocy. If they can build a "cheap" AIO, e- or iMac, why won't they take the same components, drop the monitor, and build a "cheaper" box? The answer? Single minded, unflappable, blindered, marketing idiocy.
Why such venom? Because I've rooted for Apple since my dad brought home a 512k mac in 1984. But for their incompentence, Apple should have their market share above 5%. That won't happen unless they build a non-AIO for under $1000-$1200. Until they do, I'll content myself knowing that my 1Ghz g4 iBook plays nice with Windoze XP on my "white box" 1.8 Ghz Athlon 64 and Dell PIII 866.
The second link is referenced in the first and is the history of this idea.
Essentially they recommend a whole new computer company subsidiary from Apple (called "Strawberry" for demostration purposes) that would sell low end OS X compatible computers with less frills and style. Differentiate them from PowerMacs through a number of means (a slightly crippled OS X, G3, etc.) and sell them on the cheap.
They wouldn't tarnish the brand because they're a different brand, they could be sold with Linux or OS X, sell them at WalMarts, BestBuys, K-Marts where Apple needs market penetration; overall it's a fascinating idea.
What are the downsides? I think it should be seriously considered. If you have some time take a look at the links as they're more in depth than my summary.
I had a similar idea a while back to boost Apple's market share.
1. Work with IBM and HP to sell Mac OS X based computers with Apple designed ATX and Micro-ATX motherboards based on the new iMac's chipset.
2. Develop a 576-pin ZIF slot for the PowerPC 970 and offer chips through OEM retailers.
3. Develop a 576-pin 700-series processor (770?) as kind of a PowerPC celeron and to replace the G4.
4. Offer a retail Mac compatible ATX motherboard for Enthusiasts.
I had a similar idea a while back to boost Apple's market share.
1. Work with IBM and HP to sell Mac OS X based computers with Apple designed ATX and Micro-ATX motherboards based on the new iMac's chipset.
2. Develop a 576-pin ZIF slot for the PowerPC 970 and offer chips through OEM retailers.
3. Develop a 576-pin 700-series processor (770?) as kind of a PowerPC celeron and to replace the G4.
4. Offer a retail Mac compatible ATX motherboard for Enthusiasts.
5. Watch Apple's share of the professional desktop market evaporate.
Apple's been there, done that. HP and IBM will immediately go after a market that's known and proven to be popular, rather than satisfying themselves with the niches that Apple doesn't target - because there are reasons why Apple isn't targeting them.
I have yet to confirm this for myself, but apparently the iMac's backplane is listed as a user serviceable part. Apple might be planning an Xserve-style maintenance kit for SOHO and IT markets, or they might be about to brave the aftermarket-upgrade market that blew up in their faces during the bad old days of the Performa era. But if it's targeted at the iMac, at least they still have some control over their own platform.
Why such venom? Because I've rooted for Apple since my dad brought home a 512k mac in 1984. But for their incompentence, Apple should have their market share above 5%. That won't happen unless they build a non-AIO for under $1000-$1200. Until they do, I'll content myself knowing that my 1Ghz g4 iBook plays nice with Windoze XP on my "white box" 1.8 Ghz Athlon 64 and Dell PIII 866.
This is the same fallacious dream that I keep reading ad nauseam. "If Apple just had a cheap headless marketshare would be theirs"
WRONG
That's assuming price is the number #1 problem with Mac purchases and that's debatable. Again you cannot make money on loss leaders no matter how many you sell. For Apple to have a computer as cheap as a PC they'd have to damn near take a loss. Looking at Apple's stock price leads me to emphasize that they obviously know what they are doing.
I look at my girlfriends gateway with Windows ME that crashes every time you try to do anything beyond word processing.
I look at my friends gateway that has some sort of virus or something on it and it won't even boot.
and I shrug as to why people think saving %15 is worth dealing with PC. Every single one of my friends(non geeks) with PCs has had downtime measuring in the days with their PCs. People may eventually learn......meh not!
As long as Apple is turning a profit and increasing sales albeit slowly I'm a happy Mac user. I don't desire every tom dick and harry coming over anyways.
Comments
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Sooner or later...cheap 'X' no frills boxes will be outselling Dell! I heard a story that even Dell can't compete with the Chinese box makers!!!
There's a reason why products are so inexpensive to produce in China. Is Apple's bottom-line worth it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
http://weijingsheng.org/report/repor...bbed_wages.htm
* I apologize for the soap box, but the point is relevant to this particular post.
Now... the G5 iMac has shown Apple can produce an interesting product for $1300. So....
--Dump the iMac's pretty plastics.
--Dump it's complicated cooling (necessitated largely because of the iMac's tight squeeze.
--Dump the monitor.
--Dump iLife and make it a $49 dollar upgrade.
--Sell it only online.
Now... Does anyone doubt that Apple could make money on the above machine at $899?
The two objections raised ad nauseum are cannabilization and brand dilution.
I frankly don't think cannabilization is an issue. Professionals want better graphics, faster Firewire, gigabit ethernet, SuperDrive, a faster FSB, and, ultimately, faster CPUs. IF cannabilization became an issue, there is an extrordinarily easy way for Apple to stop it... raise the price of its white box as needed.
As for brand dilution, the Apple white-box wouldn't be an Apple. Rather it would be sold by a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple, e.g., PowerComputing. To put it in perspective, The fact that Fiat owns Ferrari, Volkwagen owns Bentley,Ford owns Aston-Martin, Toyota owns Lexus and Honda owns Acura does little to dilute Ferrari, Bentley, Aston-Martin, Lexus, or Acura.
Originally posted by bunge
1) It was a concern the articles took seriously and for the sake of argument I'm willing to take it seriously.
2) I don't think anyone is worried about Apple's brand in India. It's elsewhere that people are worried about. And they're worried because the company has said they want to keep the brand high end, which precludes the ability to sell a low end box.
I guess I think staying "high end" is hardly a worry. The point is to stay high quality and to innovate. If Apple were to merely stay "high end," it would not have eMacs or iBooks or iPodmini's.
If Apple made innovative, but less expensive computers in China or India, how would that affect perceptions? Would Mac owners flee to Sony's in droves? Hardly. Would switchers decide that they would stay with Dell? No, they actually might think an increased world-wide market share would make their Apple investment a little more secure.
There is no reason for "white boxes" to be junky or low quality. That is a condescending view of both China and India. Quality boxes that can take unkind transportation systems, inconsistent voltage in power grids, cases that can handle high dust and humidiy situations and an OS that can deal with a wide number of fonts with ease ... those are what can sell overseas and those can be made by in-country partners, at a good price with good quality control. It wouldn't take long for people there to see which computers hold up better and thus create an impressive reorder rate. And in developing countries, it will be the re-order rate that will be important. The key is to get boxes out there soon.
It is basically taking the idea behind the original iBook - simple, colorful, rugged, etc. and learning about local marketing needs. And guess what? Apple might learn something by being involved in the mix!
I guess I don't have alot of patience for marketing wonks who are overly sensitive (not necesssarily anyone on this forum) to over-emphasizing "perception" rather than fact.
First off someone said they should release OSX for x86 because it would be another retail os instead of windows. Well Sun already has an alternative with Solaris for x86 and although not as visually polished as mac os x it is still a good OS.
I think it would bring a lot of money to apple if they releaced os x for x86. But it would be a dumb move for computing in general.
The x86 arch needs to die. The power arch is more than just apple. I think IBM needs to release power desktops and run linux on them or do i dare say it windows on powerpc.. Actually Solaris on power may be comming soon too.
B
irst, the reason why this comes up every frickin' week is because their are lots of people, in lots of forums, on lots of websites who think $2000 for a brand-new headless mac is asinine.
Now... the G5 iMac has shown Apple can produce an interesting product for $1300. So....
--Dump the iMac's pretty plastics.
--Dump it's complicated cooling (necessitated largely because of the iMac's tight squeeze.
--Dump the monitor.
--Dump iLife and make it a $49 dollar upgrade.
--Sell it only online.
Now... Does anyone doubt that Apple could make money on the above machine at $899?
The two objections raised ad nauseum are cannabilization and brand dilution.
I frankly don't think cannabilization is an issue. Professionals want better graphics, faster Firewire, gigabit ethernet, SuperDrive, a faster FSB, and, ultimately, faster CPUs. IF cannabilization became an issue, there is an extrordinarily easy way for Apple to stop it... raise the price of its white box as needed.
As for brand dilution, the Apple white-box wouldn't be an Apple. Rather it would be sold by a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple, e.g., PowerComputing. To put it in perspective, The fact that Fiat owns Ferrari, Volkwagen owns Bentley,Ford owns Aston-Martin, Toyota owns Lexus and Honda owns Acura does little to dilute Ferrari, Bentley, Aston-Martin, Lexus, or Acura.
You save me a job typing this up.
Lemon Bon Bon
'Power Computing'.
If Apple can division iPod and Mac.
Why not something to expand the reach of the 'experience'.
It's either make it themselves but loose the 'mystique' or give it over to HP ala iPod style version of...for distribution...
...or a smart 'plain' box branding under a plumb-da-sole.
Lemon Bon Bon
What everyone wants is a PowEMac. This is the machine to the eMac as the PowerMac is to the iMac. Perhaps eCube is a better name? As long as the graphics card is upgradable the jackals will be happy.
Why is no one bitching about an eBook?
Originally posted by Xool
I'd say there are advantages when the hardware people can coordinate with the OS people. Also, spinning off a hardware division would only open up bargain basement machines based on last year's technology. These would erode imac/iBook sales and the customer service would be worse than Apple's. Would these boxes even be sold at the Apple stores?
Some of these concerns were covered in the articles, like differentiating the products enough so that they boxes wouldn't attract the EDU market. Also, since it would be a subsidiary of Apple, the hardware and software people would stil coordinate perfectly well.
Personally I hadn't even thought about the China/India part. That is a boom waiting to happen: high quality durable and inexpensive computers. Again though, this has to be something less than the current Macs. Only a G3, no integrated video card, VGA only, something to keep costs down.
That is a boom waiting to happen: high quality durable and inexpensive computers. Again though, this has to be something less than the current Macs. Only a G3, no integrated video card, VGA only, something to keep costs down.
There is no reason that this equation of 'durable and high quality' can't be a Mac.
Take away the screen in the eMac and provide integrated craphics with AGP slot and you'd have such a proposition. For cheaper.
As for the Boom Tube. Will Apple be happy with niche in said market?
This could be a chance to change history. It won't come again.
If Apple can let go of their 'only' AIO consumer ideas then they could win more customers. They aint proud when it comes to Edu'. Look at how much the new iMac with naff Geforce 4 mx 32 meg edition costs.
Apple can do it...ie if they're desperate for marketshare in education for example...
Lemon Bon Bon
Apple only needs to be a little imaginative.
Let go a little...and not be 'so' precious.
If prestigous car makers can do it...
Lemon Bon Bon
Yes, a low-end tower is needed. But a spinoff just adds more overhead than adding a few new Mac SKUs.
Say a small business owner is thinking about switching, and walks into an Apple store to see what they offer. Let's say the need is for a server plus 10 desktop computers, for general office use - nothing special. A very low cost Apple desktop might make the package attractive. Yet if all that Apple has to offer for the desktop is an eMac, it may get a polite, "No thank you, I have 10 perfectly good Dell LCD displays already."
Apple could give their lowest end computers a different name than Macintosh, but it should stay a part of what Apple sells. Not that long ago Apple sold several Performa models, but I would never suggest resurrecting that name again.
Originally posted by Ompus
I frankly don't think cannabilization is an issue. Professionals want better graphics, faster Firewire, gigabit ethernet, SuperDrive, a faster FSB, and, ultimately, faster CPUs. IF cannabilization became an issue, there is an extrordinarily easy way for Apple to stop it... raise the price of its white box as needed.
If you are only going to sell one white box then what is the point? The company selling the box would be so limited as to be usless. Apple would be better off simply making a cheap computer. Quite why the eMac doesnt qualify mystifies me. You dont think that they are selling them super cheap into education? They could do the same thing in other markets ( India, China ). Nobody is standing around complaining that an Edu account can buy eMacs for half of retail ( guess ). Now, as to the suitability of eMacs, thats another issue. My point being, a white box manufacturer needs to be able to produce a range of systems, and in so doing, be capable of cannibalizing Apple. Apple's hook needs to be the value add. The white box systems wouldnt be eligible for Applecare, no phone support, whatever. No marketing.
As for brand dilution, the Apple white-box wouldn't be an Apple. Rather it would be sold by a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple, e.g., PowerComputing. To put it in perspective, The fact that Fiat owns Ferrari, Volkwagen owns Bentley,Ford owns Aston-Martin, Toyota owns Lexus and Honda owns Acura does little to dilute Ferrari, Bentley, Aston-Martin, Lexus, or Acura.
Well, I think your examples arent appropriate. Many of those marques are aquired through purchases. A lot of people have little awareness of the ebb and flow of marque ownership ( eg: Fiat owns Ferrari, who knew ). But one is a prime example of brand dilution. In New Zealand, and in the UK, it is well known that Lexus is Toyota's luxury marque. And it carries a corresponding stygma. To own a Lexus is to own a 'poor mans' car ( cost not corresponding ). Also of note is that Acuras and Infinitis in Australia and New Zealand are simply sold as Hondas and Nissans. They are simply high end vehicles. Apple could manage a white box subsidiary. But I dont think that the reasons really exist. A white box would not possess the strength of brand that Apple does.
Step back and examine the real issues:
a) lack of choice in the line up.
b) absence of a low end box.
I think (b) is satisfied by the eMac. Apple simply need to have the desire to chase the market. Unfortunately I see Apple as being a very Ameriocentric company, and it really hurts their international potential. This is a cultural issue. I dont think that they can fix it with a white box product. It affects much more than machine prices, it touches OS details that arent something a white box subsidiary could do anything about.
(a) is really something else. A white box sub. could really open up choice, but I think cannibalisation is a real risk then ( just as happened with the clones ). Limiting the subs markets doesnt help the problem in the states. I dont think Apple see the issue, once again cultural, because they cant meet demand ( mostly because of supply issues, not popular products ). As long as Apple can only manufacture limited quantities a white box sub will compete for the same manufacturing resources, and cannibalise Apples profits. My one hope is that Apple know this, and when supplies of cpus etc open up they will also widen the product line.
Originally posted by mmmpie
If you are only going to sell one white box then what is the point? The company selling the box would be so limited as to be usless. Apple would be better off simply making a cheap computer. Quite why the eMac doesnt qualify mystifies me.
Do you know how much an eMac weighs and how large it is? That alone should be reason enough to ask for a smaller machine. I think the eMac has a market but if Apple is to ever tackle the low end arena I think doing so as a subsidiary is the best way to get it done.
Originally posted by bunge
. . . I think the eMac has a market but if Apple is to ever tackle the low end arena I think doing so as a subsidiary is the best way to get it done.
Could you tell us, what advantages would there be for Apple in creating a subsidiary, rather than simply creating a new product line and calling it something other than Macintosh? Is it not enough to keep the Macintosh name associated with a certain level of performance and features? A new name for a new product line would set a low-end OS X computer apart from the Macintosh. I don't think Cadillac sales are hurt by the Chevrolet, and everyone knows these are both General Motors products. Of course, sheer size of these divisions makes it desirable to make them separate business units.
As for the comment that you can't sell just one kind of computer...that's silly in so many ways. But in any event, you'd probably sell a couple of different models based upon essentially identical components. E.g. a bare bones 1.6 G5, a 1.8 G5 with upgrades all around, and a 2.0 G5 with pin-stripping. Voila! The X-16, the Y-18 and the ultimate Z-20. Happy?
So on to the eMac... Perhaps people haven't heard the past 5 years of screaming...
WE...DON'T...WANT...AN...AIO....
With that said, I'll just skip over the fact that the eMac is running a 1.25 g4 with hamster-driven FSB and 17" of diagonal goodness. I had a 17" monitor for my si!
But let's return to Apple's true idiocy. If they can build a "cheap" AIO, e- or iMac, why won't they take the same components, drop the monitor, and build a "cheaper" box? The answer? Single minded, unflappable, blindered, marketing idiocy.
Why such venom? Because I've rooted for Apple since my dad brought home a 512k mac in 1984. But for their incompentence, Apple should have their market share above 5%. That won't happen unless they build a non-AIO for under $1000-$1200. Until they do, I'll content myself knowing that my 1Ghz g4 iBook plays nice with Windoze XP on my "white box" 1.8 Ghz Athlon 64 and Dell PIII 866.
Originally posted by bunge
From OS News:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4037
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3901
The second link is referenced in the first and is the history of this idea.
Essentially they recommend a whole new computer company subsidiary from Apple (called "Strawberry" for demostration purposes) that would sell low end OS X compatible computers with less frills and style. Differentiate them from PowerMacs through a number of means (a slightly crippled OS X, G3, etc.) and sell them on the cheap.
They wouldn't tarnish the brand because they're a different brand, they could be sold with Linux or OS X, sell them at WalMarts, BestBuys, K-Marts where Apple needs market penetration; overall it's a fascinating idea.
What are the downsides? I think it should be seriously considered. If you have some time take a look at the links as they're more in depth than my summary.
I had a similar idea a while back to boost Apple's market share.
1. Work with IBM and HP to sell Mac OS X based computers with Apple designed ATX and Micro-ATX motherboards based on the new iMac's chipset.
2. Develop a 576-pin ZIF slot for the PowerPC 970 and offer chips through OEM retailers.
3. Develop a 576-pin 700-series processor (770?) as kind of a PowerPC celeron and to replace the G4.
4. Offer a retail Mac compatible ATX motherboard for Enthusiasts.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
I had a similar idea a while back to boost Apple's market share.
1. Work with IBM and HP to sell Mac OS X based computers with Apple designed ATX and Micro-ATX motherboards based on the new iMac's chipset.
2. Develop a 576-pin ZIF slot for the PowerPC 970 and offer chips through OEM retailers.
3. Develop a 576-pin 700-series processor (770?) as kind of a PowerPC celeron and to replace the G4.
4. Offer a retail Mac compatible ATX motherboard for Enthusiasts.
5. Watch Apple's share of the professional desktop market evaporate.
Apple's been there, done that. HP and IBM will immediately go after a market that's known and proven to be popular, rather than satisfying themselves with the niches that Apple doesn't target - because there are reasons why Apple isn't targeting them.
I have yet to confirm this for myself, but apparently the iMac's backplane is listed as a user serviceable part. Apple might be planning an Xserve-style maintenance kit for SOHO and IT markets, or they might be about to brave the aftermarket-upgrade market that blew up in their faces during the bad old days of the Performa era. But if it's targeted at the iMac, at least they still have some control over their own platform.
Why such venom? Because I've rooted for Apple since my dad brought home a 512k mac in 1984. But for their incompentence, Apple should have their market share above 5%. That won't happen unless they build a non-AIO for under $1000-$1200. Until they do, I'll content myself knowing that my 1Ghz g4 iBook plays nice with Windoze XP on my "white box" 1.8 Ghz Athlon 64 and Dell PIII 866.
This is the same fallacious dream that I keep reading ad nauseam. "If Apple just had a cheap headless marketshare would be theirs"
WRONG
That's assuming price is the number #1 problem with Mac purchases and that's debatable. Again you cannot make money on loss leaders no matter how many you sell. For Apple to have a computer as cheap as a PC they'd have to damn near take a loss. Looking at Apple's stock price leads me to emphasize that they obviously know what they are doing.
I look at my girlfriends gateway with Windows ME that crashes every time you try to do anything beyond word processing.
I look at my friends gateway that has some sort of virus or something on it and it won't even boot.
and I shrug as to why people think saving %15 is worth dealing with PC. Every single one of my friends(non geeks) with PCs has had downtime measuring in the days with their PCs. People may eventually learn......meh not!
As long as Apple is turning a profit and increasing sales albeit slowly I'm a happy Mac user. I don't desire every tom dick and harry coming over anyways.