Why should Apple compete with a $200 machine when Dell, Gateway, Compaq, and HP don't? Dell's cheapest machine, which with a $100 off rebate per Dell's site comes out at $599, is actually very, very, very comparable to the eMac in features and price. The eMac is $200 more, but comes with a combo drive (DVD read, CD-R/RW) vs. a simple CD-ROM. It also has 10 gig. more drive space (40 vs. 30). Matching it item for item... the eMac is actually about a dead heat. Not to mention Apple undercuts the Dell with the iMac, which has no CD-RW. Yes it's not as fast, but as the man prior said (who likes $29 used Macs)... who cares? It's Apple's to Orange's, and if you're going to buy a PC over a Mac, you probably aren't the type that is inclined to...
"Think Different"
You could argue that this $200 machine will hurt Apple, I could argue that this $200 machine will have little impact. Your average consumers are afraid of Linux (and Linux doesn't understand consumers), and there's little in the marketing arena that gets behind the Linux juggernaut with average everyday Joe who wants a PC that can run America Online. I'm not supporting AOL... but it's just facts. Novices prefer it (it's easier to use for Joe Blow on dial-up than understanding the premises behind most ISP connections and installs), and when you're gearing a machine like this, you're usually selling to an impulse buyer, someone who wants to test the waters of computing. *MOST* PC buyers will shop around, but they do place at least a small part of their equity in the brand name... or if not, they purchase from a Mom and Pop shop where the pricing might be more expensive even, but they can pick the specific hardware items they want and get local support and access to someone to answer their questions. Those that are even savvy enough could purchase the components themselves and do it themself, much as I have, as you can get a better mix of components that better fit your need and are guaranteed "choice" product per component you install.
So if you; assuming you were the "Joe consumer" novice demographic I mentioned earlier, and you bought one of these machines, bought a copy of Windows XP Home (as most consumers would likely bail on Linux in mass haste), you'd be building a machine that would actually match what you get in an eMachine, and more often than not... the eMachine comes with a CD burner, and a bundled agreement with MSN or AOL. There's also the grave possibility that said machine would not run, out of the box, with a external copy of XP... and without the bundling of drivers with each hardware component that are "XP-compatible" on your restore disk (it is Linux-based after all)... you also have to be knowledgeable enough to download the necessary drivers for each component.
Linux isn't making a dent in the desktop anytime soon. Not just for the obvious, but for the not-so-obvious. KDE is decent, but it's no better than Windows, and without the body of applications and imminently, GAMES... it doesn't have any more of a prayer at this juncture than Be did. The advantage of course is that Linux isn't a company, and over time it likely has the potential to achieve. That is of course if it can obtain a semblance of "LEADERSHIP" to push it forward. It has the foundations and technology... it just needs a strong set of interface guidelines, a robust help system, wizards and tooltips, and ultimately... applications as easy to use as the "iApps". Until then... you have a $200 doorstop that would make a great server, a decent word processor (if you can deal with not using Word), and a respectable internet access machine to toss on a router, or hell... use as a router. This all of course though hinges on you being an experienced user. It also hinges on the fact that you "STILL" will likely own a secondary computer, likely a Mac or PC to truly be productive. Without Photoshop (and no GIMP doesn't remotely compare), without Word (and no Linux's office offerings also don't compare), and without a semblance of computer knowledge (some novices even struggle learning the Mac and Windows, and both are far easier than Linux's KDE and GNOME desktops, much less kludging in CLI's)... there's very little chance this machine will skyrocket in sales overall.
If you are the machines demographic, you are likely about 1% of the consumer purchasing arena. I mean, most people "KNOW" Windows, or "KNOW" the Mac... few know Linux, and the OS in and of itself is stable, efficient, but it's not exactly full of Wizards to help the novice learn, nor do it have a great "HELP" system like the Mac (and even Windows). So with the purchase of one of these, you better have a family member well versed in supporting the hardware/software for Joe consumer, not only providing "TECH SUPPORT", but also providing "COMPUTER TRAINING". Even Windows and Mac users can benefit from this, but Linux for a non-literate newbie... and that's a rather large % of the computer segment, it's almost a necessity, and you better be willing to be on call 24/7.
To me the $200 PC isn't an issue, because without knowing what is inside, I can build a machine with non-integrated components, and pick and choose and not spend an exorbitant amount beyond that $200, and get a far superior machine. I can get a PC built at a mom and pop shop near my house for $200-300 sans OS, and I can "GUARANTEE" the configuration is far superior. Those consumers that would most likely buy into these machines, are most likely novices or people wanting to buy a box to beat on. An area that Apple isn't really and as I said prior, shouldn't compete with.
If Apple is to do anything, they should diversify in transcending beyond the computer industry itself (like the iPod), beyond a single platform scope (perhaps expand the Mice/Keyboard range to include Windows; and perhaps even develop game controllers, and a whole line of mice/keyboards for the Mac), or focus on software (which they're largely doing... Keynote, iLife, DVD Studio, Final Cut Pro, Final Cut, Shake, etc. etc.), and as said prior... focus on moving slowly into enterprise (Xserve and Xserve RAID). Apple's servers are largely winning considerable favor and having great success, so they're going in the right direction...
Another thing that I wish to make perfectly clear is that it is *NOT* true that companies just up and sink. Commodore, Be, Packard Bell, and Wang all faced very slow and painful deaths by misappropriations, mismanagements, by listening to analysts and cannibalizing themselves through over-extension, and/or by not producing a good reliable quality product.
Commodore perhaps being the example more than any, as they had access to a computer like the Amiga that they so vehemently fought Atari for, and in turn they slowly faded away without much of an even semblance of knowing what to do with it. They still, 'til the day they ceased, were touting the C64/128 which at that time were 10 year old machines that couldn't match the Amiga, Mac, and even the DOS-based PC.
Be Inc. was dying almost from the day it was born. They followed a very similar path to what NeXT did, but without any real target audience or focus. They were gunning to be a "NEW" Amiga... but they didn't have the credibility of a Video Toaster, a hot app. for the Amiga, to keep them alive. With little->no real purpose, they were then basically set to compete with Apple and Microsoft, in an area that was all but saturated. They came too little, too late, and while they had an incredible product... they had no support system that was engrained at a time when marketshare, which I don't feel affects Apple the same way (and I can explain why) and nothing to attempt to steer the creation of marketshare. Without any incentive to use BeOS... they floundered from hardware maker to software maker to information appliance to *poof* They still are a viable product though, and that's why Palm purchased into them, but the question is *IF* Palm is even viable enough to stay afloat at this stage.
These "FOOTNOTES", as previously inferred, are VERY PERTINENT. "WHY?" They stand as examples to learn from. Ever heard of "Learning from other's mistakes?" That is exactly what this is. When you see another company, like a Gateway or Compaq try to compete on the low-end and cannibalize themselves to the point where the losses sustained damn near kill them or cripple them to forging a long and hard road with a considerable chance at a death Nell position; you tend to not want to follow their lead based on the experience of watching them famil.
No company currently that is stable and reliable is forging to compete against the knock-off brands (in fact, they avoid it at all costs because the profitability isn't there to justify it), nor are they trying to attack companies like eMachines which are based out of a country where costs of all components and materials incurred and used are typically focusing on as many Korean-made parts as possible. With lower cost label, and lower costs of domestic materials from said labor and material pricing(s); eMachines can undercut where other's can't because they can make larger margins based on exchange (currency) differences in value. That said... there's still considerably less fear that an eMachines will knock off a Dell or hell, even a Gateway, as long as they don't try to compete in this market and try to build a better, more innovative product at a segment where they can justify and sustain margins. That's exactly why as you move further up the market roster, more expensive machines as well as areas where you can rely on after purchase incentive (like Enterprise and Workstation sales/support) are far more profitable.
Apple's ability to survive, much like the Amiga which still has it's fans, and still has companies developing for it almost 10 years after it's death... is hinged on what they have beyond just the OS and hardware. Apple has equity in it's software base, a base that many other companies would have killed to have. There's argument that is viable to purchase a Mac because you have the second largest software base to Windows; and that's a pretty important feature. If Be had, had that... they might still be afloat, as they managed themselves better than Commodore, as Commodore had no direction.
As far as Sun going the way of SGI... LMAO... SGI is still alive. True, they are hurting... but SGI had a computer line that much like Commodore, lost complete direction. They overextended themselves in the Cray purchase that crippled them. They didn't see Linux coming, nor did they get onboard when it would've been most beneficial, and beyond that... they didn't focus on a replacment for MIPS fast enough to bring forth plans for redirection. That said, even through all of this... SGI I feel will live, even through the misguided appropriations and direction. Alias/Wavefront is a significant key asset to SGI's bottomline; SGI is finally embracing Linux, and has a bunch of Intel-based machines they can support themselves on for the near term (MIPS is all but dead for the future), while they forge ahead with a different direction that better suits the company. There's potential there...
Sun on the other hand is in a completely different situation. So Sun has higher prices, they can work around this with better services and functonality. Sun also has spearheaded considerable redirections that make them more than just a server company, largely basing out of Jini. Compared to SGI who is treading water on a slow pace, Sun is still floating and riding waves. They still have a considerable sales volume, and while the economy has hurt them... so has it hurt the competition. That said, Sun did invest in some arenas that are questionable... but so did Gateway and Compaq themselves, and the fact that Sun is still soldiering on pretty strongly and is looking at greater Linux support in the future, they likely will follow IBM's lead, by still matching or exceeding IBM in the areas they always have.
To shift gears, the iMac and eMac aren't "crash-proof", but I do have to state that for user experience it has efficiencies in usage that are an advantage, almost a feature of sorts, that the $200 PC simply can not match. Considering what the machine comes with... it doesn't burn CD's and the CD burning software(s) for Linux aren't very heralded. Yes there are options, but are they as easy to use as Disc Burner and/or Toast? Can they match the ability of iTunes disc burning? Is there a simple to use MP3 player that can do so much by default and with an intuitive interface? How about the ability to burn DVD's... the Microsoft platform currently struggles to match anything similar to iDVD. PC Magazines far and wide rant and rave on iPhoto is almost reason enough to purchase a Mac. Most PC magazines even go as far as to argue any comparison between Moviemaker and iMovie, as iMovie is said to be far superior.
The point being... there's more to look at than "hardware" all of the time. In fact, I'd venture to say that processor means very little in this day and age. What does matter is efficiency of coding and optimization. BeOS proved that if you can make a robust and efficient OS, you can overcome any hardware shortcomings, or even turn hardware on the same machine into an advantage. BeOS on a PC running side by side, same config., with another PC running Windows *PROVED* that BeOS was far, far, far faster. The more processors you threw at it, the better it scaled too. With a strong and comparable application's base, and support for a full roster of common hardware... Be would've been able to compete. However, with as little engineering and support as Be had, and as behind the 8-ball as they were (not their fault but proof it's hard to achieve what was once possible in the 1970's and 80's), it was hard to overcome.
As far as "MISJUDGING" technology as someone ignorantly pointed out, I actually was pretty spot-on with it. I said that the predictability of technology is hard to quantify, and that even people like journalist's WIRED can't even match verbatim what is to happen. It's highly unpredictable, even for those that understand technology, which is further proof that Analyst's are even in a lesser position to understand.
Which is also why Apple shouldn't try to do that which everybody out there figures they should. If Apple is sustaining profitability at their current course, and barring some theoretical miracle in technology that reinvents the wheel (and likely any technology would hurt/help all involved as all are seemingly quick to adopt new technologies as they come out, based on merit and rationale)... Apple should be able to soldier on at the current plan as long as they can succeed at the current plan. To bolster it, find areas where there's larger margins to be had, and attack those segments; don't attack segments where margins are small, and the profits in some cases can't keep up with R&D. Big companies have tried to compete in the low-end, and the only way it's worked has been through incentives like MSN or AOL bundlings and contractual agreements with a kickback through the arrangement to compensate for the margin hit.
As far as pricing... tell Bang and Oluffsen, BOSE, Nakamichi, and Sharper Image that you can't charge more for more elegant solutions. That is exactly what Apple is becoming in regards to the consumer/professional desktop. You pay a little more... but you get a buying "experience" for that $. Apple is only getting better in this regard with time.
So does Apple have to reasonably compete and keep pace on pricing? Yes, but only within logical reason, as like I said above... they're a different "STYLE" of computing. Even with pricing though, they can't please everybody and likely never will; much the same as Mercedes "WILL NEVER" sell a low-end car in the wake of a Kia or Hyundai or Daewoo. That inability to match the low-end shouldn't hurt their psyche or bottomline as long as they try to appeal to the people that make the Mac what it is, and not lose sight of what their focus "SHOULD" be.
Even said, there's more to a computer than $, as there's value per $ that makes just as much of a difference. If anything, this is highly favorable to the Mac, and will likely continue to become more favorable over time. Rather than gouging themselves over time... Apple should try to add options to increase flexibility and functionality at more sustainable price levels. The more software that is added to the mix like the iApps and middle-pro level $-based apps. for sale, the more viable Apple becomes. Toss in a PPC 970 or PPC 9800 in the future, and gear towards low-end to high-end computing as a result... and sell more iPod-like devices that fit the "Digital Hub" policy that Apple is gearing towards.
Why should Apple compete with a $200 machine when Dell, Gateway, Compaq, and HP don't? Dell's cheapest machine, which with a $100 off rebate per Dell's site comes out at $599, is actually very, very, very comparable to the eMac in features and price. The eMac is $200 more, but comes with a combo drive (DVD read, CD-R/RW) vs. a simple CD-ROM. It also has 10 gig. more drive space (40 vs. 30). Matching it item for item... the eMac is actually about a dead heat. Not to mention Apple undercuts the Dell with the iMac, which has no CD-RW. Yes it's not as fast, but as the man prior said (who likes $29 used Macs)... who cares? It's Apple's to Orange's, and if you're going to buy a PC over a Mac, you probably aren't the type that is inclined to...
"Think Different"
You could argue that this $200 machine will hurt Apple, I could argue that this $200 machine will have little impact. Your average consumers are afraid of Linux (and Linux doesn't understand consumers), and there's little in the marketing arena that gets behind the Linux juggernaut with average everyday Joe who wants a PC that can run America Online. I'm not supporting AOL... but it's just facts. Novices prefer it (it's easier to use for Joe Blow on dial-up than understanding the premises behind most ISP connections and installs), and when you're gearing a machine like this, you're usually selling to an impulse buyer, someone who wants to test the waters of computing. *MOST* PC buyers will shop around, but they do place at least a small part of their equity in the brand name... or if not, they purchase from a Mom and Pop shop where the pricing might be more expensive even, but they can pick the specific hardware items they want and get local support and access to someone to answer their questions. Those that are even savvy enough could purchase the components themselves and do it themself, much as I have, as you can get a better mix of components that better fit your need and are guaranteed "choice" product per component you install.
So if you; assuming you were the "Joe consumer" novice demographic I mentioned earlier, and you bought one of these machines, bought a copy of Windows XP Home (as most consumers would likely bail on Linux in mass haste), you'd be building a machine that would actually match what you get in an eMachine, and more often than not... the eMachine comes with a CD burner, and a bundled agreement with MSN or AOL. There's also the grave possibility that said machine would not run, out of the box, with a external copy of XP... and without the bundling of drivers with each hardware component that are "XP-compatible" on your restore disk (it is Linux-based after all)... you also have to be knowledgeable enough to download the necessary drivers for each component.
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your posts assume quite a lot, that and you type so much while saying so little.
We don't have to consider whether these machines will hurt Apple immediately. There are these nice things called trends and believe it or not you can use them to predict what might happen in the future.
Apple's moves on pricing have been nonexistant. People have been begging for an inexpensive, modern, headless Mac since well before the cube. You can follow Apple's trend here as well.
PC's have been dropping in price for a long time and the fact that you talk about Dell and company producing useable PC's at the $500 price point neglects the fact this discussion about Apple and price has been going on since the industry was talking about usable PC's at the $1500 price point. This machine would have been the $1000 computer then that Apple wouldn't compete against and folks like you would have been scoffing that Apple doesn't need to compete against that type of company or seek that type of buyer.
Well here we are in 2003 and the usable iMac is still $1299, the same price as when it was introduced. When it was introduced though it was fighting $1500 usable towers and $1000 low-ball towers. What are it's prospects when it is fighting $500 usable towers and $200 lowball towers? Where is the iMac or even eMac that will compete against these machines?
[quote] You could argue that this $200 machine will hurt Apple, I could argue that this $200 machine will have little impact. Your average consumers are afraid of Linux (and Linux doesn't understand consumers), and there's little in the marketing arena that gets behind the Linux juggernaut with average everyday Joe who wants a PC that can run America Online. I'm not supporting AOL... but it's just facts. Novices prefer it (it's easier to use for Joe Blow on dial-up than understanding the premises behind most ISP connections and installs), and when you're gearing a machine like this, you're usually selling to an impulse buyer, someone who wants to test the waters of computing. *MOST* PC buyers will shop around, but they do place at least a small part of their equity in the brand name... or if not, they purchase from a Mom and Pop shop where the pricing might be more expensive even, but they can pick the specific hardware items they want and get local support and access to someone to answer their questions. Those that are even savvy enough could purchase the components themselves and do it themself, much as I have, as you can get a better mix of components that better fit your need and are guaranteed "choice" product per component you install.
So if you; assuming you were the "Joe consumer" novice demographic I mentioned earlier, and you bought one of these machines, bought a copy of Windows XP Home (as most consumers would likely bail on Linux in mass haste), you'd be building a machine that would actually match what you get in an eMachine, and more often than not... the eMachine comes with a CD burner, and a bundled agreement with MSN or AOL. There's also the grave possibility that said machine would not run, out of the box, with a external copy of XP... and without the bundling of drivers with each hardware component that are "XP-compatible" on your restore disk (it is Linux-based after all)... you also have to be knowledgeable enough to download the necessary drivers for each component.
Linux isn't making a dent in the desktop anytime soon. Not just for the obvious, but for the not-so-obvious. KDE is decent, but it's no better than Windows, and without the body of applications and imminently, GAMES... it doesn't have any more of a prayer at this juncture than Be did. The advantage of course is that Linux isn't a company, and over time it likely has the potential to achieve. That is of course if it can obtain a semblance of "LEADERSHIP" to push it forward. It has the foundations and technology... it just needs a strong set of interface guidelines, a robust help system, wizards and tooltips, and ultimately... applications as easy to use as the "iApps". Until then... you have a $200 doorstop that would make a great server, a decent word processor (if you can deal with not using Word), and a respectable internet access machine to toss on a router, or hell... use as a router. This all of course though hinges on you being an experienced user. It also hinges on the fact that you "STILL" will likely own a secondary computer, likely a Mac or PC to truly be productive. Without Photoshop (and no GIMP doesn't remotely compare), without Word (and no Linux's office offerings also don't compare), and without a semblance of computer knowledge (some novices even struggle learning the Mac and Windows, and both are far easier than Linux's KDE and GNOME desktops, much less kludging in CLI's)... there's very little chance this machine will skyrocket in sales overall.
If you are the machines demographic, you are likely about 1% of the consumer purchasing arena. I mean, most people "KNOW" Windows, or "KNOW" the Mac... few know Linux, and the OS in and of itself is stable, efficient, but it's not exactly full of Wizards to help the novice learn, nor do it have a great "HELP" system like the Mac (and even Windows). So with the purchase of one of these, you better have a family member well versed in supporting the hardware/software for Joe consumer, not only providing "TECH SUPPORT", but also providing "COMPUTER TRAINING". Even Windows and Mac users can benefit from this, but Linux for a non-literate newbie... and that's a rather large % of the computer segment, it's almost a necessity, and you better be willing to be on call 24/7.
To me the $200 PC isn't an issue, because without knowing what is inside, I can build a machine with non-integrated components, and pick and choose and not spend an exorbitant amount beyond that $200, and get a far superior machine. I can get a PC built at a mom and pop shop near my house for $200-300 sans OS, and I can "GUARANTEE" the configuration is far superior. Those consumers that would most likely buy into these machines, are most likely novices or people wanting to buy a box to beat on. An area that Apple isn't really and as I said prior, shouldn't compete with. <hr></blockquote>
First the assumption that the computer couldn't load XP is probably the worst one that you have made. Since the computer isn't made with the latest and greatest parts the drivers are pretty much guaranteed.
Now the whole rant about the Linux desktop is off the mark as well. What you have here is a company (Apple) trying to grow marketshare. Then you have the world's largest retailer showing a complete willingness to ignore Microsoft which is something no other retailer has shown a willingness to do. Walmart has the most sophisticated datamining in the entire world. They can give you a loss leader on one item because their computers have already told then what three other items you will buy with it to give them a profit.
Their partners end up cutting prices but increasing profits and marketshare which is exactly what Apple needs to do. Walmart could show them what configurations and price points could push them to 10% marketshare while being profitable. I'm sure other companies could as well, but then they only deal with Microsoft.
Also about the point that you can buy a better machine at a Mom and Pop store and assume again that the lack of these dollars not coming to Apple is somehow beneficial is again, beyond me. Dell and company will see the Mom and Pop price points, go beat on their subcontractors and will be offering $400 computers next quarter. Apple will still be selling $1299 iMacs.
[quote] If Apple is to do anything, they should diversify in transcending beyond the computer industry itself (like the iPod), beyond a single platform scope (perhaps expand the Mice/Keyboard range to include Windows; and perhaps even develop game controllers, and a whole line of mice/keyboards for the Mac), or focus on software (which they're largely doing... Keynote, iLife, DVD Studio, Final Cut Pro, Final Cut, Shake, etc. etc.), and as said prior... focus on moving slowly into enterprise (Xserve and Xserve RAID). Apple's servers are largely winning considerable favor and having great success, so they're going in the right direction...
Another thing that I wish to make perfectly clear is that it is *NOT* true that companies just up and sink. Commodore, Be, Packard Bell, and Wang all faced very slow and painful deaths by misappropriations, mismanagements, by listening to analysts and cannibalizing themselves through over-extension, and/or by not producing a good reliable quality product.
Commodore perhaps being the example more than any, as they had access to a computer like the Amiga that they so vehemently fought Atari for, and in turn they slowly faded away without much of an even semblance of knowing what to do with it. They still, 'til the day they ceased, were touting the C64/128 which at that time were 10 year old machines that couldn't match the Amiga, Mac, and even the DOS-based PC.
Be Inc. was dying almost from the day it was born. They followed a very similar path to what NeXT did, but without any real target audience or focus. They were gunning to be a "NEW" Amiga... but they didn't have the credibility of a Video Toaster, a hot app. for the Amiga, to keep them alive. With little->no real purpose, they were then basically set to compete with Apple and Microsoft, in an area that was all but saturated. They came too little, too late, and while they had an incredible product... they had no support system that was engrained at a time when marketshare, which I don't feel affects Apple the same way (and I can explain why) and nothing to attempt to steer the creation of marketshare. Without any incentive to use BeOS... they floundered from hardware maker to software maker to information appliance to *poof* They still are a viable product though, and that's why Palm purchased into them, but the question is *IF* Palm is even viable enough to stay afloat at this stage.
These "FOOTNOTES", as previously inferred, are VERY PERTINENT. "WHY?" They stand as examples to learn from. Ever heard of "Learning from other's mistakes?" That is exactly what this is. When you see another company, like a Gateway or Compaq try to compete on the low-end and cannibalize themselves to the point where the losses sustained damn near kill them or cripple them to forging a long and hard road with a considerable chance at a death Nell position; you tend to not want to follow their lead based on the experience of watching them famil. <hr></blockquote>
Diversifying is the last thing Apple should do. If you aren't competent at your core product, the last thing you should do is go off somewhere else. Apple needs to be addressing the lack of true DDR, their processor roadmap, and the continuing migration to X, not trying to compete with $8 optical mice from Taiwan.
Actually I would argue that Commodore was one of those tipping companies that sank very quickly. A combination of factors drove them quickly into liquidation. They had c64 sells keeping them healthy for quite a while. The Amiga did well for its time but suddenly inexpensive PC's with VGA graphics abounded and Commodore was introducing the A3000 with the same old chipset. Later they managed to get AGA out but it was already having to deal with SuperVGA and suddenly bam the company files for liquidation. (Which is pretty much what 3dfx had to do) You could see the writing on the wall the the whole deal was finished within about 2 years.
I assure you there are plenty of people wondering if we are about 2 years away with Apple sitting at 3% marketshare and selling $999 700 mhz machines while Dell sells $522 machines running at 2.2 ghz.
Lastly Compaq is still around and they merged with HP in hopes their their combined efforts and efficencies might allow them to compete with all the lowballers. Gateway is in trouble because they got away from PC making and got involved with all the dot com junk. People were citing them as the dream company when 40% of their profits were coming from services that mom and pop couldn't provide. (Who else do we know that is trying to make money off of hosting, email, things like that hmmmm?) Then the bubble popped and they aren't invited to the party anymore because Dell is eating them alive.
As for Be, doesn't a company have to float before they can sink? Be was stillborn.
[quote] No company currently that is stable and reliable is forging to compete against the knock-off brands (in fact, they avoid it at all costs because the profitability isn't there to justify it), nor are they trying to attack companies like eMachines which are based out of a country where costs of all components and materials incurred and used are typically focusing on as many Korean-made parts as possible. With lower cost label, and lower costs of domestic materials from said labor and material pricing(s); eMachines can undercut where other's can't because they can make larger margins based on exchange (currency) differences in value. That said... there's still considerably less fear that an eMachines will knock off a Dell or hell, even a Gateway, as long as they don't try to compete in this market and try to build a better, more innovative product at a segment where they can justify and sustain margins. That's exactly why as you move further up the market roster, more expensive machines as well as areas where you can rely on after purchase incentive (like Enterprise and Workstation sales/support) are far more profitable. <hr></blockquote>
Wrong what you do is let the knock-off make a product for you and then add 20% for adding your name brand to it. When you go to Payless shoes for example you can buy $10 shoes or you can buy $15 dollars shoes that are exactly the same but have Mickey Mouse on them. Apple already does this but they just keep the profits. Apple doesn't make their computers. They have subcontracted out to various Taiwanese companies to produce them. Other companies do as well but somehow pass the savings on to their customers in attempts to grow marketshare. Apple doesn't.
[quote]As far as Sun going the way of SGI... LMAO... SGI is still alive. True, they are hurting... but SGI had a computer line that much like Commodore, lost complete direction. They overextended themselves in the Cray purchase that crippled them. They didn't see Linux coming, nor did they get onboard when it would've been most beneficial, and beyond that... they didn't focus on a replacment for MIPS fast enough to bring forth plans for redirection. That said, even through all of this... SGI I feel will live, even through the misguided appropriations and direction. Alias/Wavefront is a significant key asset to SGI's bottomline; SGI is finally embracing Linux, and has a bunch of Intel-based machines they can support themselves on for the near term (MIPS is all but dead for the future), while they forge ahead with a different direction that better suits the company. There's potential there... <hr></blockquote>
Why would you laugh your ass off at what you just described? You are talking about a company that once had huge mindshare now being a tech footnote because they didn't realize and respond to all the factors that were occuring around them. Thanks for making my argument for me. Apple has lots of cash in the bank. They could shut down production today and exist as a company for a couple of decades or more just doing nothing and living off interest. That doesn't mean they would be a viable platform or a true competitor. This is true for SGI. I don't want it to happen to Apple.
[quote]Sun on the other hand is in a completely different situation. So Sun has higher prices, they can work around this with better services and functonality. Sun also has spearheaded considerable redirections that make them more than just a server company, largely basing out of Jini. Compared to SGI who is treading water on a slow pace, Sun is still floating and riding waves. They still have a considerable sales volume, and while the economy has hurt them... so has it hurt the competition. That said, Sun did invest in some arenas that are questionable... but so did Gateway and Compaq themselves, and the fact that Sun is still soldiering on pretty strongly and is looking at greater Linux support in the future, they likely will follow IBM's lead, by still matching or exceeding IBM in the areas they always have. <hr></blockquote>
Sun is exactly following in the path of SGI in my opinion. They had a hardware and software advantage. Now they suddenly don't and are trying to leverage the hardware and software in odd sorts of misdirections to stay afloat. Cheap Linux boxes are eating their lunch so they.... launch cheap sun servers, they drop Soloris on Intel, no they don't drop it, they support it. Linux is the enemy, no ... linux is our friend... etc.
Eitherway the margins that were there when they had both advantages are gone. Their stock price now reflects this and if they can't adapt enough they will become another footnote.
I'll get to the rest in a bit...gotta go to work for now.
Before you cry out that that cheap components suxx0r and you couldn't imagine survival without a G4 and other goodies, remember, you can websurf, run office apps, watch movies and listen to music just fine if you have a G3, P3 or similar processor at about 600MHz. Any video card goes, as long as it isn't using shared memory (shudder). If such a machine can't do all that, the fault lies with the software or the OS.
Recently, my mom needed a new computer. To her, it was all the same, Windows or OS X, no matter. I wanted to get her a Mac, so I looked at the lowest price segment and found that the low end eMac and the low end iBook were the best choices. Then it became a tossup between luggability (which she didn't really need) and additional processing power (which she needed even less). The iBook ended up costing something like 1350 euros - a huge premium over a "good enough" PC. Rest assured, zero people who do not have previous Apple experience or strong recommendations would hand over that premium, since Apple's benefits lie on the software side and are invisible/intangible for a new customer. Apple should sell something that'd cost 700e over here in Europe.
Bottom line, there are lots and lots of people who do not need any more processing power, should not have to pay for it, and in the average case, won't pay for it.
Comments
<strong>So I take it that eMacs don't crash?
Not yet any way . . . <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Why should Apple compete with a $200 machine when Dell, Gateway, Compaq, and HP don't? Dell's cheapest machine, which with a $100 off rebate per Dell's site comes out at $599, is actually very, very, very comparable to the eMac in features and price. The eMac is $200 more, but comes with a combo drive (DVD read, CD-R/RW) vs. a simple CD-ROM. It also has 10 gig. more drive space (40 vs. 30). Matching it item for item... the eMac is actually about a dead heat. Not to mention Apple undercuts the Dell with the iMac, which has no CD-RW. Yes it's not as fast, but as the man prior said (who likes $29 used Macs)... who cares? It's Apple's to Orange's, and if you're going to buy a PC over a Mac, you probably aren't the type that is inclined to...
"Think Different"
You could argue that this $200 machine will hurt Apple, I could argue that this $200 machine will have little impact. Your average consumers are afraid of Linux (and Linux doesn't understand consumers), and there's little in the marketing arena that gets behind the Linux juggernaut with average everyday Joe who wants a PC that can run America Online. I'm not supporting AOL... but it's just facts. Novices prefer it (it's easier to use for Joe Blow on dial-up than understanding the premises behind most ISP connections and installs), and when you're gearing a machine like this, you're usually selling to an impulse buyer, someone who wants to test the waters of computing. *MOST* PC buyers will shop around, but they do place at least a small part of their equity in the brand name... or if not, they purchase from a Mom and Pop shop where the pricing might be more expensive even, but they can pick the specific hardware items they want and get local support and access to someone to answer their questions. Those that are even savvy enough could purchase the components themselves and do it themself, much as I have, as you can get a better mix of components that better fit your need and are guaranteed "choice" product per component you install.
So if you; assuming you were the "Joe consumer" novice demographic I mentioned earlier, and you bought one of these machines, bought a copy of Windows XP Home (as most consumers would likely bail on Linux in mass haste), you'd be building a machine that would actually match what you get in an eMachine, and more often than not... the eMachine comes with a CD burner, and a bundled agreement with MSN or AOL. There's also the grave possibility that said machine would not run, out of the box, with a external copy of XP... and without the bundling of drivers with each hardware component that are "XP-compatible" on your restore disk (it is Linux-based after all)... you also have to be knowledgeable enough to download the necessary drivers for each component.
Linux isn't making a dent in the desktop anytime soon. Not just for the obvious, but for the not-so-obvious. KDE is decent, but it's no better than Windows, and without the body of applications and imminently, GAMES... it doesn't have any more of a prayer at this juncture than Be did. The advantage of course is that Linux isn't a company, and over time it likely has the potential to achieve. That is of course if it can obtain a semblance of "LEADERSHIP" to push it forward. It has the foundations and technology... it just needs a strong set of interface guidelines, a robust help system, wizards and tooltips, and ultimately... applications as easy to use as the "iApps". Until then... you have a $200 doorstop that would make a great server, a decent word processor (if you can deal with not using Word), and a respectable internet access machine to toss on a router, or hell... use as a router. This all of course though hinges on you being an experienced user. It also hinges on the fact that you "STILL" will likely own a secondary computer, likely a Mac or PC to truly be productive. Without Photoshop (and no GIMP doesn't remotely compare), without Word (and no Linux's office offerings also don't compare), and without a semblance of computer knowledge (some novices even struggle learning the Mac and Windows, and both are far easier than Linux's KDE and GNOME desktops, much less kludging in CLI's)... there's very little chance this machine will skyrocket in sales overall.
If you are the machines demographic, you are likely about 1% of the consumer purchasing arena. I mean, most people "KNOW" Windows, or "KNOW" the Mac... few know Linux, and the OS in and of itself is stable, efficient, but it's not exactly full of Wizards to help the novice learn, nor do it have a great "HELP" system like the Mac (and even Windows). So with the purchase of one of these, you better have a family member well versed in supporting the hardware/software for Joe consumer, not only providing "TECH SUPPORT", but also providing "COMPUTER TRAINING". Even Windows and Mac users can benefit from this, but Linux for a non-literate newbie... and that's a rather large % of the computer segment, it's almost a necessity, and you better be willing to be on call 24/7.
To me the $200 PC isn't an issue, because without knowing what is inside, I can build a machine with non-integrated components, and pick and choose and not spend an exorbitant amount beyond that $200, and get a far superior machine. I can get a PC built at a mom and pop shop near my house for $200-300 sans OS, and I can "GUARANTEE" the configuration is far superior. Those consumers that would most likely buy into these machines, are most likely novices or people wanting to buy a box to beat on. An area that Apple isn't really and as I said prior, shouldn't compete with.
If Apple is to do anything, they should diversify in transcending beyond the computer industry itself (like the iPod), beyond a single platform scope (perhaps expand the Mice/Keyboard range to include Windows; and perhaps even develop game controllers, and a whole line of mice/keyboards for the Mac), or focus on software (which they're largely doing... Keynote, iLife, DVD Studio, Final Cut Pro, Final Cut, Shake, etc. etc.), and as said prior... focus on moving slowly into enterprise (Xserve and Xserve RAID). Apple's servers are largely winning considerable favor and having great success, so they're going in the right direction...
Another thing that I wish to make perfectly clear is that it is *NOT* true that companies just up and sink. Commodore, Be, Packard Bell, and Wang all faced very slow and painful deaths by misappropriations, mismanagements, by listening to analysts and cannibalizing themselves through over-extension, and/or by not producing a good reliable quality product.
Commodore perhaps being the example more than any, as they had access to a computer like the Amiga that they so vehemently fought Atari for, and in turn they slowly faded away without much of an even semblance of knowing what to do with it. They still, 'til the day they ceased, were touting the C64/128 which at that time were 10 year old machines that couldn't match the Amiga, Mac, and even the DOS-based PC.
Be Inc. was dying almost from the day it was born. They followed a very similar path to what NeXT did, but without any real target audience or focus. They were gunning to be a "NEW" Amiga... but they didn't have the credibility of a Video Toaster, a hot app. for the Amiga, to keep them alive. With little->no real purpose, they were then basically set to compete with Apple and Microsoft, in an area that was all but saturated. They came too little, too late, and while they had an incredible product... they had no support system that was engrained at a time when marketshare, which I don't feel affects Apple the same way (and I can explain why) and nothing to attempt to steer the creation of marketshare. Without any incentive to use BeOS... they floundered from hardware maker to software maker to information appliance to *poof* They still are a viable product though, and that's why Palm purchased into them, but the question is *IF* Palm is even viable enough to stay afloat at this stage.
These "FOOTNOTES", as previously inferred, are VERY PERTINENT. "WHY?" They stand as examples to learn from. Ever heard of "Learning from other's mistakes?" That is exactly what this is. When you see another company, like a Gateway or Compaq try to compete on the low-end and cannibalize themselves to the point where the losses sustained damn near kill them or cripple them to forging a long and hard road with a considerable chance at a death Nell position; you tend to not want to follow their lead based on the experience of watching them famil.
No company currently that is stable and reliable is forging to compete against the knock-off brands (in fact, they avoid it at all costs because the profitability isn't there to justify it), nor are they trying to attack companies like eMachines which are based out of a country where costs of all components and materials incurred and used are typically focusing on as many Korean-made parts as possible. With lower cost label, and lower costs of domestic materials from said labor and material pricing(s); eMachines can undercut where other's can't because they can make larger margins based on exchange (currency) differences in value. That said... there's still considerably less fear that an eMachines will knock off a Dell or hell, even a Gateway, as long as they don't try to compete in this market and try to build a better, more innovative product at a segment where they can justify and sustain margins. That's exactly why as you move further up the market roster, more expensive machines as well as areas where you can rely on after purchase incentive (like Enterprise and Workstation sales/support) are far more profitable.
Apple's ability to survive, much like the Amiga which still has it's fans, and still has companies developing for it almost 10 years after it's death... is hinged on what they have beyond just the OS and hardware. Apple has equity in it's software base, a base that many other companies would have killed to have. There's argument that is viable to purchase a Mac because you have the second largest software base to Windows; and that's a pretty important feature. If Be had, had that... they might still be afloat, as they managed themselves better than Commodore, as Commodore had no direction.
As far as Sun going the way of SGI... LMAO... SGI is still alive. True, they are hurting... but SGI had a computer line that much like Commodore, lost complete direction. They overextended themselves in the Cray purchase that crippled them. They didn't see Linux coming, nor did they get onboard when it would've been most beneficial, and beyond that... they didn't focus on a replacment for MIPS fast enough to bring forth plans for redirection. That said, even through all of this... SGI I feel will live, even through the misguided appropriations and direction. Alias/Wavefront is a significant key asset to SGI's bottomline; SGI is finally embracing Linux, and has a bunch of Intel-based machines they can support themselves on for the near term (MIPS is all but dead for the future), while they forge ahead with a different direction that better suits the company. There's potential there...
Sun on the other hand is in a completely different situation. So Sun has higher prices, they can work around this with better services and functonality. Sun also has spearheaded considerable redirections that make them more than just a server company, largely basing out of Jini. Compared to SGI who is treading water on a slow pace, Sun is still floating and riding waves. They still have a considerable sales volume, and while the economy has hurt them... so has it hurt the competition. That said, Sun did invest in some arenas that are questionable... but so did Gateway and Compaq themselves, and the fact that Sun is still soldiering on pretty strongly and is looking at greater Linux support in the future, they likely will follow IBM's lead, by still matching or exceeding IBM in the areas they always have.
To shift gears, the iMac and eMac aren't "crash-proof", but I do have to state that for user experience it has efficiencies in usage that are an advantage, almost a feature of sorts, that the $200 PC simply can not match. Considering what the machine comes with... it doesn't burn CD's and the CD burning software(s) for Linux aren't very heralded. Yes there are options, but are they as easy to use as Disc Burner and/or Toast? Can they match the ability of iTunes disc burning? Is there a simple to use MP3 player that can do so much by default and with an intuitive interface? How about the ability to burn DVD's... the Microsoft platform currently struggles to match anything similar to iDVD. PC Magazines far and wide rant and rave on iPhoto is almost reason enough to purchase a Mac. Most PC magazines even go as far as to argue any comparison between Moviemaker and iMovie, as iMovie is said to be far superior.
The point being... there's more to look at than "hardware" all of the time. In fact, I'd venture to say that processor means very little in this day and age. What does matter is efficiency of coding and optimization. BeOS proved that if you can make a robust and efficient OS, you can overcome any hardware shortcomings, or even turn hardware on the same machine into an advantage. BeOS on a PC running side by side, same config., with another PC running Windows *PROVED* that BeOS was far, far, far faster. The more processors you threw at it, the better it scaled too. With a strong and comparable application's base, and support for a full roster of common hardware... Be would've been able to compete. However, with as little engineering and support as Be had, and as behind the 8-ball as they were (not their fault but proof it's hard to achieve what was once possible in the 1970's and 80's), it was hard to overcome.
As far as "MISJUDGING" technology as someone ignorantly pointed out, I actually was pretty spot-on with it. I said that the predictability of technology is hard to quantify, and that even people like journalist's WIRED can't even match verbatim what is to happen. It's highly unpredictable, even for those that understand technology, which is further proof that Analyst's are even in a lesser position to understand.
Which is also why Apple shouldn't try to do that which everybody out there figures they should. If Apple is sustaining profitability at their current course, and barring some theoretical miracle in technology that reinvents the wheel (and likely any technology would hurt/help all involved as all are seemingly quick to adopt new technologies as they come out, based on merit and rationale)... Apple should be able to soldier on at the current plan as long as they can succeed at the current plan. To bolster it, find areas where there's larger margins to be had, and attack those segments; don't attack segments where margins are small, and the profits in some cases can't keep up with R&D. Big companies have tried to compete in the low-end, and the only way it's worked has been through incentives like MSN or AOL bundlings and contractual agreements with a kickback through the arrangement to compensate for the margin hit.
As far as pricing... tell Bang and Oluffsen, BOSE, Nakamichi, and Sharper Image that you can't charge more for more elegant solutions. That is exactly what Apple is becoming in regards to the consumer/professional desktop. You pay a little more... but you get a buying "experience" for that $. Apple is only getting better in this regard with time.
So does Apple have to reasonably compete and keep pace on pricing? Yes, but only within logical reason, as like I said above... they're a different "STYLE" of computing. Even with pricing though, they can't please everybody and likely never will; much the same as Mercedes "WILL NEVER" sell a low-end car in the wake of a Kia or Hyundai or Daewoo. That inability to match the low-end shouldn't hurt their psyche or bottomline as long as they try to appeal to the people that make the Mac what it is, and not lose sight of what their focus "SHOULD" be.
Even said, there's more to a computer than $, as there's value per $ that makes just as much of a difference. If anything, this is highly favorable to the Mac, and will likely continue to become more favorable over time. Rather than gouging themselves over time... Apple should try to add options to increase flexibility and functionality at more sustainable price levels. The more software that is added to the mix like the iApps and middle-pro level $-based apps. for sale, the more viable Apple becomes. Toss in a PPC 970 or PPC 9800 in the future, and gear towards low-end to high-end computing as a result... and sell more iPod-like devices that fit the "Digital Hub" policy that Apple is gearing towards.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: IVIIVI4ck3y27 ]</p>
<strong>First things first... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow.
I am going to save this
<strong>First things first...
Why should Apple compete with a $200 machine when Dell, Gateway, Compaq, and HP don't? Dell's cheapest machine, which with a $100 off rebate per Dell's site comes out at $599, is actually very, very, very comparable to the eMac in features and price. The eMac is $200 more, but comes with a combo drive (DVD read, CD-R/RW) vs. a simple CD-ROM. It also has 10 gig. more drive space (40 vs. 30). Matching it item for item... the eMac is actually about a dead heat. Not to mention Apple undercuts the Dell with the iMac, which has no CD-RW. Yes it's not as fast, but as the man prior said (who likes $29 used Macs)... who cares? It's Apple's to Orange's, and if you're going to buy a PC over a Mac, you probably aren't the type that is inclined to...
"Think Different"
You could argue that this $200 machine will hurt Apple, I could argue that this $200 machine will have little impact. Your average consumers are afraid of Linux (and Linux doesn't understand consumers), and there's little in the marketing arena that gets behind the Linux juggernaut with average everyday Joe who wants a PC that can run America Online. I'm not supporting AOL... but it's just facts. Novices prefer it (it's easier to use for Joe Blow on dial-up than understanding the premises behind most ISP connections and installs), and when you're gearing a machine like this, you're usually selling to an impulse buyer, someone who wants to test the waters of computing. *MOST* PC buyers will shop around, but they do place at least a small part of their equity in the brand name... or if not, they purchase from a Mom and Pop shop where the pricing might be more expensive even, but they can pick the specific hardware items they want and get local support and access to someone to answer their questions. Those that are even savvy enough could purchase the components themselves and do it themself, much as I have, as you can get a better mix of components that better fit your need and are guaranteed "choice" product per component you install.
So if you; assuming you were the "Joe consumer" novice demographic I mentioned earlier, and you bought one of these machines, bought a copy of Windows XP Home (as most consumers would likely bail on Linux in mass haste), you'd be building a machine that would actually match what you get in an eMachine, and more often than not... the eMachine comes with a CD burner, and a bundled agreement with MSN or AOL. There's also the grave possibility that said machine would not run, out of the box, with a external copy of XP... and without the bundling of drivers with each hardware component that are "XP-compatible" on your restore disk (it is Linux-based after all)... you also have to be knowledgeable enough to download the necessary drivers for each component.
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your posts assume quite a lot, that and you type so much while saying so little.
We don't have to consider whether these machines will hurt Apple immediately. There are these nice things called trends and believe it or not you can use them to predict what might happen in the future.
Apple's moves on pricing have been nonexistant. People have been begging for an inexpensive, modern, headless Mac since well before the cube. You can follow Apple's trend here as well.
PC's have been dropping in price for a long time and the fact that you talk about Dell and company producing useable PC's at the $500 price point neglects the fact this discussion about Apple and price has been going on since the industry was talking about usable PC's at the $1500 price point. This machine would have been the $1000 computer then that Apple wouldn't compete against and folks like you would have been scoffing that Apple doesn't need to compete against that type of company or seek that type of buyer.
Well here we are in 2003 and the usable iMac is still $1299, the same price as when it was introduced. When it was introduced though it was fighting $1500 usable towers and $1000 low-ball towers. What are it's prospects when it is fighting $500 usable towers and $200 lowball towers? Where is the iMac or even eMac that will compete against these machines?
[quote] You could argue that this $200 machine will hurt Apple, I could argue that this $200 machine will have little impact. Your average consumers are afraid of Linux (and Linux doesn't understand consumers), and there's little in the marketing arena that gets behind the Linux juggernaut with average everyday Joe who wants a PC that can run America Online. I'm not supporting AOL... but it's just facts. Novices prefer it (it's easier to use for Joe Blow on dial-up than understanding the premises behind most ISP connections and installs), and when you're gearing a machine like this, you're usually selling to an impulse buyer, someone who wants to test the waters of computing. *MOST* PC buyers will shop around, but they do place at least a small part of their equity in the brand name... or if not, they purchase from a Mom and Pop shop where the pricing might be more expensive even, but they can pick the specific hardware items they want and get local support and access to someone to answer their questions. Those that are even savvy enough could purchase the components themselves and do it themself, much as I have, as you can get a better mix of components that better fit your need and are guaranteed "choice" product per component you install.
So if you; assuming you were the "Joe consumer" novice demographic I mentioned earlier, and you bought one of these machines, bought a copy of Windows XP Home (as most consumers would likely bail on Linux in mass haste), you'd be building a machine that would actually match what you get in an eMachine, and more often than not... the eMachine comes with a CD burner, and a bundled agreement with MSN or AOL. There's also the grave possibility that said machine would not run, out of the box, with a external copy of XP... and without the bundling of drivers with each hardware component that are "XP-compatible" on your restore disk (it is Linux-based after all)... you also have to be knowledgeable enough to download the necessary drivers for each component.
Linux isn't making a dent in the desktop anytime soon. Not just for the obvious, but for the not-so-obvious. KDE is decent, but it's no better than Windows, and without the body of applications and imminently, GAMES... it doesn't have any more of a prayer at this juncture than Be did. The advantage of course is that Linux isn't a company, and over time it likely has the potential to achieve. That is of course if it can obtain a semblance of "LEADERSHIP" to push it forward. It has the foundations and technology... it just needs a strong set of interface guidelines, a robust help system, wizards and tooltips, and ultimately... applications as easy to use as the "iApps". Until then... you have a $200 doorstop that would make a great server, a decent word processor (if you can deal with not using Word), and a respectable internet access machine to toss on a router, or hell... use as a router. This all of course though hinges on you being an experienced user. It also hinges on the fact that you "STILL" will likely own a secondary computer, likely a Mac or PC to truly be productive. Without Photoshop (and no GIMP doesn't remotely compare), without Word (and no Linux's office offerings also don't compare), and without a semblance of computer knowledge (some novices even struggle learning the Mac and Windows, and both are far easier than Linux's KDE and GNOME desktops, much less kludging in CLI's)... there's very little chance this machine will skyrocket in sales overall.
If you are the machines demographic, you are likely about 1% of the consumer purchasing arena. I mean, most people "KNOW" Windows, or "KNOW" the Mac... few know Linux, and the OS in and of itself is stable, efficient, but it's not exactly full of Wizards to help the novice learn, nor do it have a great "HELP" system like the Mac (and even Windows). So with the purchase of one of these, you better have a family member well versed in supporting the hardware/software for Joe consumer, not only providing "TECH SUPPORT", but also providing "COMPUTER TRAINING". Even Windows and Mac users can benefit from this, but Linux for a non-literate newbie... and that's a rather large % of the computer segment, it's almost a necessity, and you better be willing to be on call 24/7.
To me the $200 PC isn't an issue, because without knowing what is inside, I can build a machine with non-integrated components, and pick and choose and not spend an exorbitant amount beyond that $200, and get a far superior machine. I can get a PC built at a mom and pop shop near my house for $200-300 sans OS, and I can "GUARANTEE" the configuration is far superior. Those consumers that would most likely buy into these machines, are most likely novices or people wanting to buy a box to beat on. An area that Apple isn't really and as I said prior, shouldn't compete with. <hr></blockquote>
First the assumption that the computer couldn't load XP is probably the worst one that you have made. Since the computer isn't made with the latest and greatest parts the drivers are pretty much guaranteed.
Now the whole rant about the Linux desktop is off the mark as well. What you have here is a company (Apple) trying to grow marketshare. Then you have the world's largest retailer showing a complete willingness to ignore Microsoft which is something no other retailer has shown a willingness to do. Walmart has the most sophisticated datamining in the entire world. They can give you a loss leader on one item because their computers have already told then what three other items you will buy with it to give them a profit.
Their partners end up cutting prices but increasing profits and marketshare which is exactly what Apple needs to do. Walmart could show them what configurations and price points could push them to 10% marketshare while being profitable. I'm sure other companies could as well, but then they only deal with Microsoft.
Also about the point that you can buy a better machine at a Mom and Pop store and assume again that the lack of these dollars not coming to Apple is somehow beneficial is again, beyond me. Dell and company will see the Mom and Pop price points, go beat on their subcontractors and will be offering $400 computers next quarter. Apple will still be selling $1299 iMacs.
[quote] If Apple is to do anything, they should diversify in transcending beyond the computer industry itself (like the iPod), beyond a single platform scope (perhaps expand the Mice/Keyboard range to include Windows; and perhaps even develop game controllers, and a whole line of mice/keyboards for the Mac), or focus on software (which they're largely doing... Keynote, iLife, DVD Studio, Final Cut Pro, Final Cut, Shake, etc. etc.), and as said prior... focus on moving slowly into enterprise (Xserve and Xserve RAID). Apple's servers are largely winning considerable favor and having great success, so they're going in the right direction...
Another thing that I wish to make perfectly clear is that it is *NOT* true that companies just up and sink. Commodore, Be, Packard Bell, and Wang all faced very slow and painful deaths by misappropriations, mismanagements, by listening to analysts and cannibalizing themselves through over-extension, and/or by not producing a good reliable quality product.
Commodore perhaps being the example more than any, as they had access to a computer like the Amiga that they so vehemently fought Atari for, and in turn they slowly faded away without much of an even semblance of knowing what to do with it. They still, 'til the day they ceased, were touting the C64/128 which at that time were 10 year old machines that couldn't match the Amiga, Mac, and even the DOS-based PC.
Be Inc. was dying almost from the day it was born. They followed a very similar path to what NeXT did, but without any real target audience or focus. They were gunning to be a "NEW" Amiga... but they didn't have the credibility of a Video Toaster, a hot app. for the Amiga, to keep them alive. With little->no real purpose, they were then basically set to compete with Apple and Microsoft, in an area that was all but saturated. They came too little, too late, and while they had an incredible product... they had no support system that was engrained at a time when marketshare, which I don't feel affects Apple the same way (and I can explain why) and nothing to attempt to steer the creation of marketshare. Without any incentive to use BeOS... they floundered from hardware maker to software maker to information appliance to *poof* They still are a viable product though, and that's why Palm purchased into them, but the question is *IF* Palm is even viable enough to stay afloat at this stage.
These "FOOTNOTES", as previously inferred, are VERY PERTINENT. "WHY?" They stand as examples to learn from. Ever heard of "Learning from other's mistakes?" That is exactly what this is. When you see another company, like a Gateway or Compaq try to compete on the low-end and cannibalize themselves to the point where the losses sustained damn near kill them or cripple them to forging a long and hard road with a considerable chance at a death Nell position; you tend to not want to follow their lead based on the experience of watching them famil. <hr></blockquote>
Diversifying is the last thing Apple should do. If you aren't competent at your core product, the last thing you should do is go off somewhere else. Apple needs to be addressing the lack of true DDR, their processor roadmap, and the continuing migration to X, not trying to compete with $8 optical mice from Taiwan.
Actually I would argue that Commodore was one of those tipping companies that sank very quickly. A combination of factors drove them quickly into liquidation. They had c64 sells keeping them healthy for quite a while. The Amiga did well for its time but suddenly inexpensive PC's with VGA graphics abounded and Commodore was introducing the A3000 with the same old chipset. Later they managed to get AGA out but it was already having to deal with SuperVGA and suddenly bam the company files for liquidation. (Which is pretty much what 3dfx had to do) You could see the writing on the wall the the whole deal was finished within about 2 years.
I assure you there are plenty of people wondering if we are about 2 years away with Apple sitting at 3% marketshare and selling $999 700 mhz machines while Dell sells $522 machines running at 2.2 ghz.
Lastly Compaq is still around and they merged with HP in hopes their their combined efforts and efficencies might allow them to compete with all the lowballers. Gateway is in trouble because they got away from PC making and got involved with all the dot com junk. People were citing them as the dream company when 40% of their profits were coming from services that mom and pop couldn't provide. (Who else do we know that is trying to make money off of hosting, email, things like that hmmmm?) Then the bubble popped and they aren't invited to the party anymore because Dell is eating them alive.
As for Be, doesn't a company have to float before they can sink? Be was stillborn.
[quote] No company currently that is stable and reliable is forging to compete against the knock-off brands (in fact, they avoid it at all costs because the profitability isn't there to justify it), nor are they trying to attack companies like eMachines which are based out of a country where costs of all components and materials incurred and used are typically focusing on as many Korean-made parts as possible. With lower cost label, and lower costs of domestic materials from said labor and material pricing(s); eMachines can undercut where other's can't because they can make larger margins based on exchange (currency) differences in value. That said... there's still considerably less fear that an eMachines will knock off a Dell or hell, even a Gateway, as long as they don't try to compete in this market and try to build a better, more innovative product at a segment where they can justify and sustain margins. That's exactly why as you move further up the market roster, more expensive machines as well as areas where you can rely on after purchase incentive (like Enterprise and Workstation sales/support) are far more profitable. <hr></blockquote>
Wrong what you do is let the knock-off make a product for you and then add 20% for adding your name brand to it. When you go to Payless shoes for example you can buy $10 shoes or you can buy $15 dollars shoes that are exactly the same but have Mickey Mouse on them. Apple already does this but they just keep the profits. Apple doesn't make their computers. They have subcontracted out to various Taiwanese companies to produce them. Other companies do as well but somehow pass the savings on to their customers in attempts to grow marketshare. Apple doesn't.
[quote]As far as Sun going the way of SGI... LMAO... SGI is still alive. True, they are hurting... but SGI had a computer line that much like Commodore, lost complete direction. They overextended themselves in the Cray purchase that crippled them. They didn't see Linux coming, nor did they get onboard when it would've been most beneficial, and beyond that... they didn't focus on a replacment for MIPS fast enough to bring forth plans for redirection. That said, even through all of this... SGI I feel will live, even through the misguided appropriations and direction. Alias/Wavefront is a significant key asset to SGI's bottomline; SGI is finally embracing Linux, and has a bunch of Intel-based machines they can support themselves on for the near term (MIPS is all but dead for the future), while they forge ahead with a different direction that better suits the company. There's potential there... <hr></blockquote>
Why would you laugh your ass off at what you just described? You are talking about a company that once had huge mindshare now being a tech footnote because they didn't realize and respond to all the factors that were occuring around them. Thanks for making my argument for me. Apple has lots of cash in the bank. They could shut down production today and exist as a company for a couple of decades or more just doing nothing and living off interest. That doesn't mean they would be a viable platform or a true competitor. This is true for SGI. I don't want it to happen to Apple.
[quote]Sun on the other hand is in a completely different situation. So Sun has higher prices, they can work around this with better services and functonality. Sun also has spearheaded considerable redirections that make them more than just a server company, largely basing out of Jini. Compared to SGI who is treading water on a slow pace, Sun is still floating and riding waves. They still have a considerable sales volume, and while the economy has hurt them... so has it hurt the competition. That said, Sun did invest in some arenas that are questionable... but so did Gateway and Compaq themselves, and the fact that Sun is still soldiering on pretty strongly and is looking at greater Linux support in the future, they likely will follow IBM's lead, by still matching or exceeding IBM in the areas they always have. <hr></blockquote>
Sun is exactly following in the path of SGI in my opinion. They had a hardware and software advantage. Now they suddenly don't and are trying to leverage the hardware and software in odd sorts of misdirections to stay afloat. Cheap Linux boxes are eating their lunch so they.... launch cheap sun servers, they drop Soloris on Intel, no they don't drop it, they support it. Linux is the enemy, no ... linux is our friend... etc.
Eitherway the margins that were there when they had both advantages are gone. Their stock price now reflects this and if they can't adapt enough they will become another footnote.
I'll get to the rest in a bit...gotta go to work for now.
Nick
Before you cry out that that cheap components suxx0r and you couldn't imagine survival without a G4 and other goodies, remember, you can websurf, run office apps, watch movies and listen to music just fine if you have a G3, P3 or similar processor at about 600MHz. Any video card goes, as long as it isn't using shared memory (shudder). If such a machine can't do all that, the fault lies with the software or the OS.
Recently, my mom needed a new computer. To her, it was all the same, Windows or OS X, no matter. I wanted to get her a Mac, so I looked at the lowest price segment and found that the low end eMac and the low end iBook were the best choices. Then it became a tossup between luggability (which she didn't really need) and additional processing power (which she needed even less). The iBook ended up costing something like 1350 euros - a huge premium over a "good enough" PC. Rest assured, zero people who do not have previous Apple experience or strong recommendations would hand over that premium, since Apple's benefits lie on the software side and are invisible/intangible for a new customer. Apple should sell something that'd cost 700e over here in Europe.
Bottom line, there are lots and lots of people who do not need any more processing power, should not have to pay for it, and in the average case, won't pay for it.