From my view, Apple's sales is still driven by existing mac users who upgrade their machines. But this is not sustainable and Apple needs to grab more switchers.
Price is not everything. Apple needs to advertise more, go to schools more to tell students and teachers about the wonders of OS X. But of course, Apple still must keep prices competitive and reasonable (Not cheap cos its impossible).
Still, I see a good future for Apple. Prices of many machines are falling and this is a good thing.
Many seasoned mac users are probably waiting for the new processor iMacs while potential switchers are probably turned off by the prices.
Many of my friends just can't believe the price tag of the iMacs. And I can't blame them.
stunned, you are right about the switch comment. I will be switching as soon as prices are closer to meeting my budget. I'm spoiled, I would like the 800 MHz eMac maxed out. But, the price needs to drop.
I'm annoyed at Apple for not advertising more. Some PC users I've talk to about Macs, (I've talked to about 10 people) most of them laughed and said all they remember about Apple are the rainbow-colored iMac CRT's. A few know about the iBook and the iPod. A few made comments along the line that "Apple is pre-historic." This is what they believe, because they are constantly bombarded with the top-of-the-line stuff from Dell, etc.
Mac Voyer don't you see what you are saying. Apple in not selling out its long term goals for the short term. Apple is a company that is in good finacial health. Apple would loose tons of money if they did what you want. A $999 mac with the best of everything and a 15 inch monitor. What they shold provide is a low cost machine that appeals to the non computer people. Something that is $399. Slow is fine. 15 inch monitor is fine (G3 iMac). If the experience is a good one, it will atract people to the platform.
Apple won't make money on these machines but there is nothing new about that. Apple makes money on PowerMacs. When the sell a more competative workstation (ie. 970) Apple's profits will rise. Once that happens, Apple will be free to sell a $399 machine.
Yes, a $399 mac will not make money. It does not need to. Apple does not make money on a $999 mac! Apple's profit come from the sales of its workstations (PowerMacs). Read my post, Apple must improve these so as to provide the profit to allow them to sell a $399 machine.
Give potential switchers something that is not so alien to them at a price that is not so alien to them in a style that only Apple could achieve and they will come. Don't make them feel like they have to compromise in order to use a Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Compromise is one thing, but how is Apple supposed to lure people away by offering pretty much the same thing that everyone else offers? The fear of most PC users is lack of compatibility, and that's mostly a software problem (when it's not a misplaced concern, as with email). There is the problem of incompatible peripherals, which Apple will continually need to work on, but with all the basic software in place, and a good list of compatible peripherals, I think Apple's free to design their machines however they want to. I don't think the average PC user is attached to towers. They just aren't aware that their are better solutions to the problem of how to package a computer. I should say, they aren't aware of better ways to package desktops, because they've jumped on laptops as an alternative.
As long as it's compatible, the differentiation of the Mac AIOs is good. The machine you describe wouldn't be half as simple or intuitive or ergonomic to set up and use. Ease of use goes beyond the operating system, and ease of use in hardware is something that a customer can immediately grasp and appreciate: Just look at the iPod.
<strong>Yes, a $399 mac will not make money. It does not need to. Apple does not make money on a $999 mac! Apple's profit come from the sales of its workstations (PowerMacs). Read my post, Apple must improve these so as to provide the profit to allow them to sell a $399 machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>Sure, profit margins are usually higher on more expensive computers... but you don't actually know how much apple makes with each iMac sale. How do you know that Apple makes no money at the $999 price-point?
IMHO... iMac 15" sales have slumped for one simple reason. LCDs are expensive. People willing to spend more money for a luxory screen are unlikely to buy a small AND non-upgradeable screen.
Its quite easy to forget that most office and home computer users would like to spend less on their computers than your typical AI Forum lurker.
15 inches, by today's standards, is small and LCDs cost approximately two to three times as much as comparable CRTs. With the availability of the 17" model, high-end buyers didn't choose to buy the older, smaller model to save a few bucks. Budget buyers were never buying the LCD iMac.
the number one reason why the imac and emac aren't selling is because they simply don't represent a very good value to your average pc consumer. i'm not talking about your average mac consumer, but your potential pc convert.
The entire problem with apple's internal philosophy is that they prefer to bleed the installed base rather than agressively pursue switchers. how else to explain the forced stratification of the consumer and pro lines? you think i'm joking? put a 1.25 or 1.33 ghz g4 with a 133 mhz bus into your $999 emac and your 1299 imac and watch them fly off the shelves compared to the 700mhz emac and 800 mhz emac. yeah, so the profit markins on those machines shrink from 22% to 16% (sorry, there isn't more than a 70 dollar difference in the price of the high end and low end chips when purchased in the type of quantity that apple does), and yeah, you've lowered the relative value of the towers because they no longer provide quite the performance premium, but you have DRAMATICALLY increased the value of the computers to the OTHER 96 PERCENT OF THE MARKET!!!!
i don't know what stevo is thinking these days. with respect to the emac and imac, the former has been graced with a 9% price drop after 6 months and the latter a 16% price drop and 15% increase in speed after one year. Apple is going GOING BACKWARD in the value department for these two machines compared to the pc market!!! the typical pc will probably see a 30 percent increase in speed and 20 percent reduction in price for that same one year time period!!
i can only assume that apple is desperatley trying to keep this pricing structure in place until the 970 comes out and they aren't forced to criple the consumer line anymore.
Expensive toys. That's how many people see the new iMacs. I have been talking to one of my friends for some time trying to turn him on to the joys of LCD displays. He just can't see the purpose of such a display other than space. They are just too expensive compared to the cost of a big CRT. He is right, but that's not the point. They're cool.
Apple cares a lot about cool, but the average consumer doesn't. Take LCDs, for instance. Do they give you accurate color when compared to CRTs? Do they make all text easier to read in all resolutions? Are they better than CRTs for most jobs? No, but they are much cooler. Apple sells cool.
The Cube was cool, too cool. Ports on the bottom, flip it upside down to get into it. Cool, expensive, but not totally sensible. They made it look cool, but it didn't run cool (from what I read). They made it look simple but it wasn't. It was Apple cool to the core. But it was not a PC switch box.
The AIO design may in fact be the perfect solution for low end consumers. I doubt it, but let's just say it is for the sake of argument. It does not matter one bit because the consumers you are trying to reach have already rejected that as a solution. They are not the Apple RDF infected market. You can't force them into agreeing with your solutions. Apple is used to forcing people into neat categories and spoon feeding them the products that Apple deems fit for that category. Apple consumers are use to being told what they really want. PC consumers will not be forced into SJ's idea of computing utopia. Apple must sell the PC consumer what they want, Not what Apple thinks they need. If the PC consumer wants a gaming rig for $999 with monitor, Apple had better find a way to sell it to them. If the PC consumer wants the comfort of PCI slots and upgradable graphics, you had better find a way to sell it to them instead of telling them what they will never use or need.
People keep describing the iMac as a consumer box for basic tasks like email, word processing, and Web surfing. If that's the case, please tell me why on earth the average PC consumer shouldn't just go to Best Buy and pick up a $699 box with monitor. Is the cool factor of the iMac worth it? Sure, if you're into cool. But the average consumer is not. If SJ wants to sell to the other 95%, he must offer them what they want, no matter how much he personally hates two button mice. If he's not willing to do that, then he might as well end the switch campaign now.
The iMac is perfect for Apple consumers. But in some ways, it just spits in the face of PC buyers who have already voted with their dollars and made their preferences clear. If Apple wants that business, they had better start listening.
I think the big problem with the iMac is, you have to lose the screen when you upgrade. The 17" screen isn't cheap, so when I want a newer, faster model, what do I have to do? I have to pay for the 17" LCD all over again. The perfectly good one I had I can't use over again.
That is what I think holds back iMac sales. If I want a non-upgradeable box with a non-removable LCD screen, I'll buy a laptop.
If you could buy a new iMac base and transfer the LCD from one base to another, I'd be all over that.
[edit]
What I mean is, if I bought an iMac today, and was able to keep the screen and put next year's base onto it (at a reduced cost, of course), then that would make the iMac more palatable to me.
<strong>If I want a non-upgradeable box with a non-removable LCD screen, I'll buy a laptop.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. There's no real advantage to an iMac either in performance or cost. Just ergos, and you can fiz that with a 100 bucks worth of third party stand/keyboard/mouse.
Apple has got to know how incredibly well a Cube redux would do (think hybrid ShuttlePC/cube/PMlight). Once Cubes were discounted to what should have been their original price (after discontinuation) the remaining stock sold out in days. People wanted them, they just didn't want to get sodomied witha sharpened credit card to have one. As I ALWAYS say, you cannot pidgeonhole customers based on what you would like to sell them. For the longest time they lacked a legitimate 1800-2000 laptop offering. That was a huge hole, when they plugged it, I bought one, and by the looks of messageboards everywhere, and the wait time frustrations, so did a whole lot of other people. Now they have a similar gap in their desktop line. Not a price gap, but a philosophical gap. There is no comsumer priced expandable/upgradeable computer. Displays ARE expensive to buy and repair and people already have perfectly good ones. They want the box and they want to add their own display. When a cube redux shows up in Apple's line-up between 900-1500, I'm right there. Untill then I will pay neither of Apple's underpowered/overpriced desktop lines.
PS, Steve-eo, do you want me to cancel my order and unleash a stream of bitter anti-Apple diatribes the likes of which have never been seen? Deliver my fricken book already!
Most importantly, no upgradability. If Apple would just give the iMac a standard video card, many Wintel users would be swayed.
The cube was the perfect iMac base, it had an upgradable video card AND CPU. But Apple fscked it up by making the base disposable. Nobody who knows anything about computers wants a disposable computer.
Yup, just lost another Mac person. Tried to convince her to buy an eMac since thats the cheapest desktop Apple sells. She said why should i pay $1000 for a computer that can't be upgraded when I already have a 17 inch monitor and can buy a Compaq tower for $600(2 Ghz celeron, CDRW). Sure Compaq sucks but for $400 less she got what she wanted-a cheap tower. Apple never learns..................
Hi, this is my first time participating in a Mac forum since I'm a lifetime PC user. I'm considering the switch this summer when I go to college and want to add my two cents from a PC user's view.
I am considering the 12" pb heavily and before that announcement I was considering the 14" ibook. I think Apple is doing a strong job in laptops but here are my criticisms. Apple is obstinate when it comes to conformity of any kind it seems. I was really surprised at the lack of USB 2 on the new powerbooks. Considering it only adds a few cents to the cost and would further compatibility with new PC hardware. I plan to purchase a USB 2 film scanner next month. Apple's excuse is apparently apple user's prefer firewire. Ummmmmmm. APPLE USERS. How are they expecting to switch semi hardcore PC users like myself if they don't reach out? I love firewire and all for video but isn't "more is more"? I see this on the side of apple's own headquarters every week. Also, the lack of two button mouse is irksome. The first thing i plan to do is buy a logitech mouse when I get a mac if I do.
The main thing that turned me on to apple is not their slick industrial design but mostly OSX. I'm tired of the Window's registry getting screwed up and the like and havint to format and reinstall. I use OS 9 400 mhz G4 towers at school right now and I can say I wouldn't wanna use os 9 at home because its' difficult to switch between apps and when one program crashes it seems like it's fatal in all cases. However OS X changes these things and so i'm considering apple seriously for the first time in my life.
Finally, price is the hugest issue I have with apple and causes me to hesitate. When I purchase a brand new apple over from a PC, i have to factor in software costs. The fact that the hardware alone costs more plus the new software costs doesn't make this appealing. Apple seems to refuse to have a true consumer value machine, instead it feels like they like to maintain this snobby class air to their products. The eMac is ok but it's too little too late. The wow over apple products always seems to be over form factor and not over the technical breakthroughs. Maybe the G5 will change this and bump decent performance down to consumer machines. G4 should be the standard now and not the "professional" class. Don't get me wrong, i'm a designer and the form factor to me is just as important but never supercedes perfomance.
Finally, I know apple wants to make all their own hardware and everything but this will only continue to weaken market share. I would have bought OSX the day it came out and switched to a mac OS if it ran on 99% of the machines out there. Instead, to "switch" I have to trade everything it feels like. Porting it over to intel or amd processors may add some unstability but it'll shoot up market share i'm sure cuz it feels like apple is slowly dying out again. 3.8% market share to 3.1% last quarter (c|net news). This however would destroy apple's hardware department. I don't kno. Apple just feels like high end cars to me. A lot of people want one but we don't all have high salaries. It may have a better product but that doesn't mean everybody buys Porsches instead of Hondas. I have iPod lust too but i'm not ready to shell out over $300 for a music player even though I have 20gb of music on my hdd. $299 is my max. After all, music isn't my life, i'd rather give that money over to buy some photo equipment. I was hoping the ipod prices would come down as it's been a while since it first came out but it seems apple wants to maintain the high profit margins and phase out low end stuff. Every student wants one but few can afford it.
<strong>And will go right on losing sales. There's a reason people like towers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For Apple to gain market share they have to appeal to more of the market. The iMac is a good computer, and appeals to a part of the market but not all of it. The Cube design would be a good low end system, better if they redesinded a desktop/Cube hybrid that they could get a PCI card in it for sound cards or comm cards, such as FW 800 and USB 2. It's a good thing we dont see the "think differnet" adds anymore becouse it definatly does not fit with Apple's offerings, which are "Have it our way, and pay twice the price," but if ya gotta have a Porsche ya gonna have to pay....lol <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Daniel. I assure you Apple is not "slowly dying again"
Had you been a Mac user Circa 1996-1997 you would have witnessed "slowly dying" for real. In many ways I'm suprised that Apple was able to make a comeback. Let's just say they were pretty much "dazed and confused"
It is actually the PC market that is struggling with forward movement. With each new succession of products the real world applications of the new technology seem to diminish. Frankly Microsoft is moving in the wrong direction..they are choosing to walk a fine line between catering to their end users and Big Business. Apple seems squarely focused on consumers right now IMO.
Apple's strength is growing. OSX is rapidly maturing. Apple still has much on it's plate and it's having far more successes than failures. Hop in and get to know the culture a bit. Generally what you'll find is that Mac users focus on what they do with their computers moreso than how we are able to overclock our FSB or add water cooling to our modded Case. Good luck.
Comments
Price is not everything. Apple needs to advertise more, go to schools more to tell students and teachers about the wonders of OS X. But of course, Apple still must keep prices competitive and reasonable (Not cheap cos its impossible).
Still, I see a good future for Apple. Prices of many machines are falling and this is a good thing.
Many seasoned mac users are probably waiting for the new processor iMacs while potential switchers are probably turned off by the prices.
Many of my friends just can't believe the price tag of the iMacs. And I can't blame them.
stunned, you are right about the switch comment. I will be switching as soon as prices are closer to meeting my budget. I'm spoiled, I would like the 800 MHz eMac maxed out. But, the price needs to drop.
I'm annoyed at Apple for not advertising more. Some PC users I've talk to about Macs, (I've talked to about 10 people) most of them laughed and said all they remember about Apple are the rainbow-colored iMac CRT's. A few know about the iBook and the iPod. A few made comments along the line that "Apple is pre-historic." This is what they believe, because they are constantly bombarded with the top-of-the-line stuff from Dell, etc.
IMO, Apple doesn't *want* to advertise more.
[ 02-11-2003: Message edited by: JustPeachy ]</p>
Apple won't make money on these machines but there is nothing new about that. Apple makes money on PowerMacs. When the sell a more competative workstation (ie. 970) Apple's profits will rise. Once that happens, Apple will be free to sell a $399 machine.
Marketshare means nothing if you can't take advantage of it with turning that advanted into profits.
.mac was a step in the right direction. Successful Services can be highly profitable. Give the consumers something that cannot live without.
<strong>
Give potential switchers something that is not so alien to them at a price that is not so alien to them in a style that only Apple could achieve and they will come. Don't make them feel like they have to compromise in order to use a Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Compromise is one thing, but how is Apple supposed to lure people away by offering pretty much the same thing that everyone else offers? The fear of most PC users is lack of compatibility, and that's mostly a software problem (when it's not a misplaced concern, as with email). There is the problem of incompatible peripherals, which Apple will continually need to work on, but with all the basic software in place, and a good list of compatible peripherals, I think Apple's free to design their machines however they want to. I don't think the average PC user is attached to towers. They just aren't aware that their are better solutions to the problem of how to package a computer. I should say, they aren't aware of better ways to package desktops, because they've jumped on laptops as an alternative.
As long as it's compatible, the differentiation of the Mac AIOs is good. The machine you describe wouldn't be half as simple or intuitive or ergonomic to set up and use. Ease of use goes beyond the operating system, and ease of use in hardware is something that a customer can immediately grasp and appreciate: Just look at the iPod.
[ 02-11-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
What have thye been doing since 1984?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's products are much more differentiated now than they have ever been, including 1984.
<strong>Yes, a $399 mac will not make money. It does not need to. Apple does not make money on a $999 mac! Apple's profit come from the sales of its workstations (PowerMacs). Read my post, Apple must improve these so as to provide the profit to allow them to sell a $399 machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>Sure, profit margins are usually higher on more expensive computers... but you don't actually know how much apple makes with each iMac sale. How do you know that Apple makes no money at the $999 price-point?
IMHO... iMac 15" sales have slumped for one simple reason. LCDs are expensive. People willing to spend more money for a luxory screen are unlikely to buy a small AND non-upgradeable screen.
Its quite easy to forget that most office and home computer users would like to spend less on their computers than your typical AI Forum lurker.
15 inches, by today's standards, is small and LCDs cost approximately two to three times as much as comparable CRTs. With the availability of the 17" model, high-end buyers didn't choose to buy the older, smaller model to save a few bucks. Budget buyers were never buying the LCD iMac.
The entire problem with apple's internal philosophy is that they prefer to bleed the installed base rather than agressively pursue switchers. how else to explain the forced stratification of the consumer and pro lines? you think i'm joking? put a 1.25 or 1.33 ghz g4 with a 133 mhz bus into your $999 emac and your 1299 imac and watch them fly off the shelves compared to the 700mhz emac and 800 mhz emac. yeah, so the profit markins on those machines shrink from 22% to 16% (sorry, there isn't more than a 70 dollar difference in the price of the high end and low end chips when purchased in the type of quantity that apple does), and yeah, you've lowered the relative value of the towers because they no longer provide quite the performance premium, but you have DRAMATICALLY increased the value of the computers to the OTHER 96 PERCENT OF THE MARKET!!!!
i don't know what stevo is thinking these days. with respect to the emac and imac, the former has been graced with a 9% price drop after 6 months and the latter a 16% price drop and 15% increase in speed after one year. Apple is going GOING BACKWARD in the value department for these two machines compared to the pc market!!! the typical pc will probably see a 30 percent increase in speed and 20 percent reduction in price for that same one year time period!!
i can only assume that apple is desperatley trying to keep this pricing structure in place until the 970 comes out and they aren't forced to criple the consumer line anymore.
Apple cares a lot about cool, but the average consumer doesn't. Take LCDs, for instance. Do they give you accurate color when compared to CRTs? Do they make all text easier to read in all resolutions? Are they better than CRTs for most jobs? No, but they are much cooler. Apple sells cool.
The Cube was cool, too cool. Ports on the bottom, flip it upside down to get into it. Cool, expensive, but not totally sensible. They made it look cool, but it didn't run cool (from what I read). They made it look simple but it wasn't. It was Apple cool to the core. But it was not a PC switch box.
The AIO design may in fact be the perfect solution for low end consumers. I doubt it, but let's just say it is for the sake of argument. It does not matter one bit because the consumers you are trying to reach have already rejected that as a solution. They are not the Apple RDF infected market. You can't force them into agreeing with your solutions. Apple is used to forcing people into neat categories and spoon feeding them the products that Apple deems fit for that category. Apple consumers are use to being told what they really want. PC consumers will not be forced into SJ's idea of computing utopia. Apple must sell the PC consumer what they want, Not what Apple thinks they need. If the PC consumer wants a gaming rig for $999 with monitor, Apple had better find a way to sell it to them. If the PC consumer wants the comfort of PCI slots and upgradable graphics, you had better find a way to sell it to them instead of telling them what they will never use or need.
People keep describing the iMac as a consumer box for basic tasks like email, word processing, and Web surfing. If that's the case, please tell me why on earth the average PC consumer shouldn't just go to Best Buy and pick up a $699 box with monitor. Is the cool factor of the iMac worth it? Sure, if you're into cool. But the average consumer is not. If SJ wants to sell to the other 95%, he must offer them what they want, no matter how much he personally hates two button mice. If he's not willing to do that, then he might as well end the switch campaign now.
The iMac is perfect for Apple consumers. But in some ways, it just spits in the face of PC buyers who have already voted with their dollars and made their preferences clear. If Apple wants that business, they had better start listening.
That is what I think holds back iMac sales. If I want a non-upgradeable box with a non-removable LCD screen, I'll buy a laptop.
If you could buy a new iMac base and transfer the LCD from one base to another, I'd be all over that.
[edit]
What I mean is, if I bought an iMac today, and was able to keep the screen and put next year's base onto it (at a reduced cost, of course), then that would make the iMac more palatable to me.
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: PBG4 Dude ]</p>
<strong>If I want a non-upgradeable box with a non-removable LCD screen, I'll buy a laptop.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. There's no real advantage to an iMac either in performance or cost. Just ergos, and you can fiz that with a 100 bucks worth of third party stand/keyboard/mouse.
Apple has got to know how incredibly well a Cube redux would do (think hybrid ShuttlePC/cube/PMlight). Once Cubes were discounted to what should have been their original price (after discontinuation) the remaining stock sold out in days. People wanted them, they just didn't want to get sodomied witha sharpened credit card to have one. As I ALWAYS say, you cannot pidgeonhole customers based on what you would like to sell them. For the longest time they lacked a legitimate 1800-2000 laptop offering. That was a huge hole, when they plugged it, I bought one, and by the looks of messageboards everywhere, and the wait time frustrations, so did a whole lot of other people. Now they have a similar gap in their desktop line. Not a price gap, but a philosophical gap. There is no comsumer priced expandable/upgradeable computer. Displays ARE expensive to buy and repair and people already have perfectly good ones. They want the box and they want to add their own display. When a cube redux shows up in Apple's line-up between 900-1500, I'm right there. Untill then I will pay neither of Apple's underpowered/overpriced desktop lines.
PS, Steve-eo, do you want me to cancel my order and unleash a stream of bitter anti-Apple diatribes the likes of which have never been seen? Deliver my fricken book already!
Price
Display too damn small on 15 incher
MHz
Most importantly, no upgradability. If Apple would just give the iMac a standard video card, many Wintel users would be swayed.
The cube was the perfect iMac base, it had an upgradable video card AND CPU. But Apple fscked it up by making the base disposable. Nobody who knows anything about computers wants a disposable computer.
I am considering the 12" pb heavily and before that announcement I was considering the 14" ibook. I think Apple is doing a strong job in laptops but here are my criticisms. Apple is obstinate when it comes to conformity of any kind it seems. I was really surprised at the lack of USB 2 on the new powerbooks. Considering it only adds a few cents to the cost and would further compatibility with new PC hardware. I plan to purchase a USB 2 film scanner next month. Apple's excuse is apparently apple user's prefer firewire. Ummmmmmm. APPLE USERS. How are they expecting to switch semi hardcore PC users like myself if they don't reach out? I love firewire and all for video but isn't "more is more"? I see this on the side of apple's own headquarters every week. Also, the lack of two button mouse is irksome. The first thing i plan to do is buy a logitech mouse when I get a mac if I do.
The main thing that turned me on to apple is not their slick industrial design but mostly OSX. I'm tired of the Window's registry getting screwed up and the like and havint to format and reinstall. I use OS 9 400 mhz G4 towers at school right now and I can say I wouldn't wanna use os 9 at home because its' difficult to switch between apps and when one program crashes it seems like it's fatal in all cases. However OS X changes these things and so i'm considering apple seriously for the first time in my life.
Finally, price is the hugest issue I have with apple and causes me to hesitate. When I purchase a brand new apple over from a PC, i have to factor in software costs. The fact that the hardware alone costs more plus the new software costs doesn't make this appealing. Apple seems to refuse to have a true consumer value machine, instead it feels like they like to maintain this snobby class air to their products. The eMac is ok but it's too little too late. The wow over apple products always seems to be over form factor and not over the technical breakthroughs. Maybe the G5 will change this and bump decent performance down to consumer machines. G4 should be the standard now and not the "professional" class. Don't get me wrong, i'm a designer and the form factor to me is just as important but never supercedes perfomance.
Finally, I know apple wants to make all their own hardware and everything but this will only continue to weaken market share. I would have bought OSX the day it came out and switched to a mac OS if it ran on 99% of the machines out there. Instead, to "switch" I have to trade everything it feels like. Porting it over to intel or amd processors may add some unstability but it'll shoot up market share i'm sure cuz it feels like apple is slowly dying out again. 3.8% market share to 3.1% last quarter (c|net news). This however would destroy apple's hardware department. I don't kno. Apple just feels like high end cars to me. A lot of people want one but we don't all have high salaries. It may have a better product but that doesn't mean everybody buys Porsches instead of Hondas. I have iPod lust too but i'm not ready to shell out over $300 for a music player even though I have 20gb of music on my hdd. $299 is my max. After all, music isn't my life, i'd rather give that money over to buy some photo equipment. I was hoping the ipod prices would come down as it's been a while since it first came out but it seems apple wants to maintain the high profit margins and phase out low end stuff. Every student wants one but few can afford it.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: DiDi163 ]</p>
<strong>And will go right on losing sales. There's a reason people like towers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For Apple to gain market share they have to appeal to more of the market. The iMac is a good computer, and appeals to a part of the market but not all of it. The Cube design would be a good low end system, better if they redesinded a desktop/Cube hybrid that they could get a PCI card in it for sound cards or comm cards, such as FW 800 and USB 2. It's a good thing we dont see the "think differnet" adds anymore becouse it definatly does not fit with Apple's offerings, which are "Have it our way, and pay twice the price," but if ya gotta have a Porsche ya gonna have to pay....lol <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Had you been a Mac user Circa 1996-1997 you would have witnessed "slowly dying" for real. In many ways I'm suprised that Apple was able to make a comeback. Let's just say they were pretty much "dazed and confused"
It is actually the PC market that is struggling with forward movement. With each new succession of products the real world applications of the new technology seem to diminish. Frankly Microsoft is moving in the wrong direction..they are choosing to walk a fine line between catering to their end users and Big Business. Apple seems squarely focused on consumers right now IMO.
Apple's strength is growing. OSX is rapidly maturing. Apple still has much on it's plate and it's having far more successes than failures. Hop in and get to know the culture a bit. Generally what you'll find is that Mac users focus on what they do with their computers moreso than how we are able to overclock our FSB or add water cooling to our modded Case. Good luck.