Apple can continue to meet earnings and show growth by simply continuting to open the VERY profitable retail stores.
Several markets still lack a store and there are other markets that could easily support a second or third store.
Yes, stores bring a good result for Apple.
Something that, again, was thought to be a very bad idea.
People were looking to the stores that IBM had years ago that weren't successful. Then to Gateway's disastrous retail operation.
What we've seen here at Apple over the past three years or so (and for a couple of years in the late '90's), is that they study previous endeavors. They then understand what was done correctly (if anything; nothing was done correctly in Gateway's case), and what was done incorrectly.
After that, if there seems to be a way to sucessfully model the idea, they do so.
Apple's iPods are a very good example. Previous efforts had many problems. displays and menus were heavily criticized. Controls were too cumbersome.
Apple saw both of these problems and eliminated them. On the way, they made them comfortable to hold, and attractive to look at.
When sales exceeded Apple's expectations ( Jobs had said that the iPods were doing much better than expected. This was said 6 months after their intro.). Apple looked to a way to increase their value.
They looked at ways to acquire music. The sites at the time were terrible. Selections were slim, at best. The software, dare I say, sucked? The prices were far too high.
Apple fixed those problems as well, and tied the software to the iPods, and, as they say, the rest is history.
With the stores. Apple saw what finished IBM and Gateway's efforts.
IBM sold no product in its stores except for small accessories, and even that was reluctantly.
Gateway didn't either, at least at first. You could see stuff at the store, but then had to order online.
But the major problems were that they put the stores at random, almost anywhere they could rent a space. They also had no coherent plan for their stores. The employees were not particularly knowledgeable or helpful. You couldn't get service from employees either.
Many stores were in bad neighborhoods, where you wouldn't want to go to buy an expensive item, or sometimes even just to go and look.
Apple solved those problems as well. Even now, with all of the complaints in the industry about deteriorating service, Apple is increasing service at their stores.
This is why they are being successful.
Sorry for the apparent rant. I guess the energy was leftover from my last post.
Apple solved those problems as well. Even now, with all of the complaints in the industry about deteriorating service, Apple is increasing service at their stores.
This is why they are being successful.
Mel-
Any idea if Apple has studied Toyota's method of continuous improvement? (I don't remember the name... is it "Six Sigma"?). Just curious.
I'm sure that Apple understands its aspects. I don't know if they are an officially certified company. Companies who are, usually advertise that. Apple doesn't do the kind of work, or have the kind of products that would fall under that umbrella.
I think the reason Apple will continue to grow is that Macs will be ever more appealing in the future. You will have the ability to dual boot and that will be a huge selling point. There is no longer an excuse not to switch really besides having the money. This is a for sure method to convert people to macs.
....
It just won't be very practical to run a hacked version of Mac OS X when it will run better on an a mac anyways. To me the people who most likely will run a hacked version of Mac OS X are the people who use Linux and compile their own kernels. They make up less then 1 percent of the population and aren't even a target market for manufactured computers.
You seem to think that running hacked versions of OS X is a "linux crowd" type of thing, where only a very small majority do it. That's most likely true. However, do you really think that the population of users who'll have no problem dual-booting their computers between windows and mac, and trying to keep files in sync since the file systems aren't compatible, and remembering what they need to do to run program X, is a large population? Hell, most computer users are good enough to get by with windows or the mac sitting in front of them and open the files they were working on yesterday. You'll see lots of Mac users buying these to get Windows support (well, non-supported support) so they can run their required windows program. But there's no way this is going to drive a whole lot of Windows users to switch. Or, if they do, they'll just boot up in windows anyway and stay there.
Finally, this one comment is the most important:
Quote:
There is no longer an excuse not to switch really besides having the money.
Money is always the stumbling block. Esp. if you can get a dell, with a monitor, for $500, trying to sell a mac with monitor for more than twice that is still going to be a sticking point for a lot of people.
(Hey, the least apple could do is start selling computers at $600, with lousy specs, like Dell, to draw people into the store. But, nope, Apple likes to think of themselves as the high-class computer company, middle-class people need not bother coming in. If you have to ask how much a Mac costs, you can't afford it. That kind of thing.)
[B]You seem to think that running hacked versions of OS X is a "linux crowd" type of thing, where only a very small majority do it. That's most likely true. However, do you really think that the population of users who'll have no problem dual-booting their computers between windows and mac, and trying to keep files in sync since the file systems aren't compatible, and remembering what they need to do to run program X, is a large population? Hell, most computer users are good enough to get by with windows or the mac sitting in front of them and open the files they were working on yesterday. You'll see lots of Mac users buying these to get Windows support (well, non-supported support) so they can run their required windows program. But there's no way this is going to drive a whole lot of Windows users to switch. Or, if they do, they'll just boot up in windows anyway and stay there.
My fingers are crossed.
Quote:
Money is always the stumbling block. Esp. if you can get a dell, with a monitor, for $500, trying to sell a mac with monitor for more than twice that is still going to be a sticking point for a lot of people.
(Hey, the least apple could do is start selling computers at $600, with lousy specs, like Dell, to draw people into the store. But, nope, Apple likes to think of themselves as the high-class computer company, middle-class people need not bother coming in. If you have to ask how much a Mac costs, you can't afford it. That kind of thing.)
Apple has a problem with this part of the equation.
Dell doesn't get much, if any, publicity when they come out with really cheap and crappy machines. They just sell them. They also have these specials that we all know about that will let you buy many machines or monitors at up to 40% off. Apple NEVER has these kinds of sales.
Apple gets too much publicity when it comes out with anything. That's the way Jobs likes it. When you sell 4% of the machines out there, and when it has its own OS, which makes it difficult for people to simply got from a PC to a Mac, you need ALL the publicity that you can get.
I say that it's too much publicity, because when Apple comes out with a new machine, it's immediately compared to those cheap Dell machines, or even worse, to some no name built-it-yourself machine. Apple can't win here.
Therefore, if Apple comes out with some cheap Dell-like machine, the PC crowd will jump on it and say that it's a piece of crap, even though they wouldn't say that about the piece of crap that Dell is selling.
I see these comparisons in ARs, for example, all the time. The ONLY thing they consider to be important is performance/price. The idea that these things are absurdly flimsy, or that they have a battery life of not much more than an hour, etc., doesn't seem to matter.
And when I suggest here that Apple come out with less expensive (cheaper) cases, I get flamed! The iBook could be dropped $100 with a cheaper non-polycarbonate case. The PB could be dropped $150 with a non-aluminum case. Even the mini could be sold cheaper. The towers could lose $200 bucks if Apple went to a more standard case with conventional plastic.
That doesn't mean that the machines wouldn't still look good.
I don' think cost as that big of a problem. Evidenced in the fact that the Macintosh is selling really well at its price point. Most namely the iMac and the iBook.
I agree that price does keep Apple out of a certain level. In that many people simply won't pay that much for a computer. Its not that important to them. Which I think is fine. Because there are some customers you really don't want.
Dell is somewhat at a point of saturation. Mosty everyone who would buy a Dell computer has bought one. Dell now has to figure out ways to ge its previoius customers to buy new Dell computers. Or move into other complementary markets such as consumer electronics.
Microsoft is in the same situation of trying to hard sell Vista to a market that is saturated with a variety of Windows operating systems. Bot Microsoft and Dell sell to the lowest common denominator of the computer market. Which are people who are not too computer savvy. Which forces more service support on Dell and has driven down the quality of Dells support. MS has to deal with people who do not know how to secure their computers and foster an enviornment where malicious code can run amok. HP is trying to figure out its identity. Struggling to find its place in the market for future growth.
Apple on the other hand is in a niche with a healthy and loyal customer base. Where largely the people who buy a Macintosh do so because they actively chose it. These people are generally more computer savvy. Not computer experts - but savvy. At this point Apple does not have many of the monolithic business problems of Dell or HP or MS. While it is enjoying record sales and is flush with cash.
Apple is in a good position at this point. From the evidence I see Apple does not want to compete directly against Dell or Microsoft. I don't think they need to.
I don' think cost as that big of a problem. Evidenced in the fact that the Macintosh is selling really well at its price point. Most namely the iMac and the iBook.
I agree that price does keep Apple out of a certain level. In that many people simply won't pay that much for a computer. Its not that important to them. Which I think is fine. Because there are some customers you really don't want.
Dell is somewhat at a point of saturation. Mosty everyone who would buy a Dell computer has bought one. Dell now has to figure out ways to ge its previoius customers to buy new Dell computers. Or move into other complementary markets such as consumer electronics.
Microsoft is in the same situation of trying to hard sell Vista to a market that is saturated with a variety of Windows operating systems. Bot Microsoft and Dell sell to the lowest common denominator of the computer market. Which are people who are not too computer savvy. Which forces more service support on Dell and has driven down the quality of Dells support. MS has to deal with people who do not know how to secure their computers and foster an enviornment where malicious code can run amok. HP is trying to figure out its identity. Struggling to find its place in the market for future growth.
Apple on the other hand is in a niche with a healthy and loyal customer base. Where largely the people who buy a Macintosh do so because they actively chose it. These people are generally more computer savvy. Not computer experts - but savvy. At this point Apple does not have many of the monolithic business problems of Dell or HP or MS. While it is enjoying record sales and is flush with cash.
Apple is in a good position at this point. From the evidence I see Apple does not want to compete directly against Dell or Microsoft. I don't think they need to.
Dell doesn't have the problem that everyone who wants a Dell has one. Their problem is that their business model of online sales and cutting out the middleman, resulting in lower prices, has come to an end. Other companies are now making machines that compete with Dell on price. PC buyers have very little brand loyalty (yes, I know, there are always exceptions). If they are buying a Windows machine, they can go from one to the other without much loss.
Not so when they come to the Mac.
Apple is trying to increase their marketshare. They can't do that by appealing only to their ever shrinking base. The reason why I describe it as ever shrinking, is because people get older, move on to other things, etc. The base has to be constantly renewed.
And where will that renewal come from? Windows users, people buying their first machine, and even some Linux users.
So, Apple has to appeal to them as well. This means lower prices. Why do you think Apple came out with the Mini? Specifically to court Windows and Linux users. Jobs even said that.
Dell doesn't have the problem that everyone who wants a Dell has one. Their problem is that their business model of online sales and cutting out the middleman, resulting in lower prices, has come to an end.
That's basically what I was saying, just worded differently.
I should've said most everyone who would be in the market for a $500 dollar computer already has one.
Quote:
Apple is trying to increase their marketshare. They can't do that by appealing only to their ever shrinking base. The reason why I describe it as ever shrinking, is because people get older, move on to other things, etc. The base has to be constantly renewed.
I wasn't saying Apple only has to depend on its current user base forever. I don't think it even sounded as though I was saying that.
Quote:
And where will that renewal come from? Windows users, people buying their first machine, and even some Linux users.
So, Apple has to appeal to them as well. This means lower prices. Why do you think Apple came out with the Mini? Specifically to court Windows and Linux users. Jobs even said that.
I agree Apple needs switchers. Yes the mini was the headless low cost computer so many had been asking for.
But what you said assumes Apple's current user base are the only people willing to spend $1200 to $2500 for a computer. When PC users who want a performance machine are spending the basic same amount a G5 and software would cost.
For the vast majority of people you could sell them a white box with the word COMPUTER written on the side in bold type. This is the market I don't think Apple needs to compete in.
That's basically what I was saying, just worded differently.
I should've said most everyone who would be in the market for a $500 dollar computer already has one.
I wasn't saying Apple only has to depend on its current user base forever. I don't think it even sounded as though I was saying that.
I agree Apple needs switchers. Yes the mini was the headless low cost computer so many had been asking for.
But what you said assumes Apple's current user base are the only people willing to spend $1200 to $2500 for a computer. When PC users who want a performance machine are spending the basic same amount a G5 and software would cost.
For the vast majority of people you could sell them a white box with the word COMPUTER written on the side in bold type. This is the market I don't think Apple needs to compete in.
I'll give you your points.
But when you look at the price of the average computer these days, including LCD monitor, and printer, it is under $1,000. Like $800. And that includes the keyboard and mouse.
Remember, that's the average selling price of a PC. So when I say that Apple must try to compete there, they have to lure that average person over.
I'm not even interested in competing in the inexpensive space, even though you might think that that above price IS the inexpensive space. It's not. That space is the complete system for $400.
If Apple could sell a machine (complete) for under $1,000 that competes directly with that $800 deal, then they can compete. People do expect to spend a bit more, but not much more.
If Apple sold the Mini for the same price, but included the keyboard and mouse, people would have been much happier.
I don' think cost as that big of a problem. Evidenced in the fact that the Macintosh is selling really well at its price point. Most namely the iMac and the iBook.
Great. Except Dell sold 10 Million computers last quarter. Apple, if its a really, really, really, good quarter, may have sold 1.5 million. Tops. Yeah, cost is no factor whatsoever. Or maybe the cost is what keeps the marketshare low, which, in turn, keeps sales at these 'great' levels.
I agree Apple needs switchers. Yes the mini was the headless low cost computer so many had been asking for.
What? People have been looking for a under-powered, non-upgradable computer using slow parts and basically containing two+ year old tech? Well, OK, if you say so. The only people I know who loved it are those looking for a computer to shove into their car or pretend that its perfect as a media center device. Besides that, it didn't come close to the computer most people I've heard scream for (the low-cost mini tower with limited, but some, expandability options).
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
But what you said assumes Apple's current user base are the only people willing to spend $1200 to $2500 for a computer. When PC users who want a performance machine are spending the basic same amount a G5 and software would cost.
No, PC users get performance machines for less. Or they get more for that price. Depends on how you want to look at it. Get a tower with monitor for the mac, $2700 at least. Same for Dell? A lot less. Or, hey, I guess you could compare the Dell with the iMac, assuming you don't need exandability or anything. Just hope that you're iMac's monitor doesn't go pffft! in a year, since you'll have to replace the whole computer to get working again.
Oh, for all you "the price are the same for equivalent machines!" people out there, I don't want to hear about it. Guess what. Dell let's you configure computers to have what you WANT in them, not what Dell wants you to have. So if you want a computer with a 20" screen, but have no need for a DVD-RW drive, you don't have to get one! Or if you've got no need for firewire, or wireless access (who needs a desktop with wireless, really, if you expect decent network performance?), just leave it all out. I know its nice to add it in to push the price higher, but the point is choice, not what Apple forces you to get. (Oh, and in all those, things, very rarely does anyone throw in how much it costs to add 4 more USB ports into an iMac to match the number on a dell - oh, wait, you can't add anything to an iMac, you have to get another external device and stick it on your desk. Great! There's goes the neat desk the iMac was supposed to offer!)
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
For the vast majority of people you could sell them a white box with the word COMPUTER written on the side in bold type. This is the market I don't think Apple needs to compete in.
Right. Great attitude. Its the "We're better then those lowly people. We don't want them to play with our computers. Its their decision to not know what makes computers work and how to use them and all that. So let them use hard-to-use windows boxes!" attitude. Great job Tenobell! Nothing like alienating a large segment of society, so you can keep your little private cabal together. Oh, I know, you just don't want to be bothered by friends and relatives trying to get their macs to work...
What? People have been looking for a under-powered, non-upgradable computer using slow parts and basically containing two+ year old tech? Well, OK, if you say so. The only people I know who loved it are those looking for a computer to shove into their car or pretend that its perfect as a media center device. Besides that, it didn't come close to the computer most people I've heard scream for (the low-cost mini tower with limited, but some, expandability options).
AMEN AMEN AMEN Preach it brother!!!
What I have said I want and would be willing to pay for (since last JAN when I got serious about buying a mac)
A decent, moddern, reasonably speedy chip
A NON AIO formfactor
easily upgradable with at least 2 ram slots and the abiliy to house 2 internal HDDs
These are features that I demand of any desktop PC I buy, regaurdless of budget. and is standard on every Dell and HP, even the sff units.
I COULD NOT GET THIS FROM APPLE FOR UNDER $2000!
So i bought a mini, while it is great, I could see the need for a gig or more of ram as I use many apps at once, a second HDD for media storage without having to buy some overpriced Lacie FW thing or homebrewing myown from old parts...ah well, the minute teh intel version of the final release is cracked, I will just build an AMD 64 rig (as I already own a tiger license) untill I can afford the insain PM pricepoints.
Great. Except Dell sold 10 Million computers last quarter. Apple, if its a really, really, really, good quarter, may have sold 1.5 million. Tops. Yeah, cost is no factor whatsoever. Or maybe the cost is what keeps the marketshare low, which, in turn, keeps sales at these 'great' levels.
Marketshare and profit are not necessarily connected and don't increase or decrease at the same rate. Per computer sale Apple is making more money than Dell.
Quote:
What? People have been looking for a under-powered, non-upgradable computer using slow parts and basically containing two+ year old tech? Well, OK, if you say so.
Underpowered is relative. Underpowered for what task? If you want to play video games yes it is. If you want a general computer the mini is fine.
Quote:
Oh, for all you "the price are the same for equivalent machines!" people out there, I don't want to hear about it.
This is what I said: "When PC users who want a performance machine are spending the basic same amount a G5 and software (SOFTWARE) would cost."
Quote:
Dell let's you configure computers to have what you WANT in them, not what Dell wants you to have.
So why are you here? Go buy your configured Dell and be happy.
Quote:
but the point is choice, not what Apple forces you to get.
Aren't we loosing perspective here? Apple doesn't force anybody to do anything. You either buy the computer or you don't. If the market didn't want what Apple was offering no one would buy it.
Quote:
Great job Tenobell! Nothing like alienating a large segment of society, so you can keep your little private cabal together. Oh, I know, you just don't want to be bothered by friends and relatives trying to get their macs to work...
I don't know about all that.
Yeah it would be great if Apple lowered their prices. Yes I like it that Apple targets the more professional market and not the low value market.
There are some serious flaws in Dells discount selling practice. Eventually the bottom will fall out.
Quote:
These are features that I demand of any desktop PC I buy, regaurdless of budget. and is standard on every Dell and HP, even the sff units.
Every PC does not offer all of those features at every price point. But its true you get more hardware features at a lower price point than Apple offers. What Apple does offer is better software at every point than most PC's offer.
Quote:
a second HDD for media storage without having to buy some overpriced Lacie FW thing
I don't think they are expensive. I bought a 200GB Lacie that came with the newest version of Toast for $120.
I don't think they are expensive. I bought a 200GB Lacie that came with the newest version of Toast for $120.
interesting, I must not be shopping the right places.
the point is that I have somel old HDDs here that I could just toss into any off-the-shelf PC or a PMG5 if I wanted to, but I cannot do that with the mini where I really need the storage, and what the hell would it cost to design the thing to be consumer-servicable with an additional ram slot...is that too much to ask? To be honest, I dont care if it is the size of a car stereo...I have room for another mini or mid tower.
Comments
Apple can continue to meet earnings and show growth by simply continuting to open the VERY profitable retail stores.
Several markets still lack a store and there are other markets that could easily support a second or third store.
Originally posted by briang5000
don't forget retail.
Apple can continue to meet earnings and show growth by simply continuting to open the VERY profitable retail stores.
Several markets still lack a store and there are other markets that could easily support a second or third store.
Yes, stores bring a good result for Apple.
Something that, again, was thought to be a very bad idea.
People were looking to the stores that IBM had years ago that weren't successful. Then to Gateway's disastrous retail operation.
What we've seen here at Apple over the past three years or so (and for a couple of years in the late '90's), is that they study previous endeavors. They then understand what was done correctly (if anything; nothing was done correctly in Gateway's case), and what was done incorrectly.
After that, if there seems to be a way to sucessfully model the idea, they do so.
Apple's iPods are a very good example. Previous efforts had many problems. displays and menus were heavily criticized. Controls were too cumbersome.
Apple saw both of these problems and eliminated them. On the way, they made them comfortable to hold, and attractive to look at.
When sales exceeded Apple's expectations ( Jobs had said that the iPods were doing much better than expected. This was said 6 months after their intro.). Apple looked to a way to increase their value.
They looked at ways to acquire music. The sites at the time were terrible. Selections were slim, at best. The software, dare I say, sucked? The prices were far too high.
Apple fixed those problems as well, and tied the software to the iPods, and, as they say, the rest is history.
With the stores. Apple saw what finished IBM and Gateway's efforts.
IBM sold no product in its stores except for small accessories, and even that was reluctantly.
Gateway didn't either, at least at first. You could see stuff at the store, but then had to order online.
But the major problems were that they put the stores at random, almost anywhere they could rent a space. They also had no coherent plan for their stores. The employees were not particularly knowledgeable or helpful. You couldn't get service from employees either.
Many stores were in bad neighborhoods, where you wouldn't want to go to buy an expensive item, or sometimes even just to go and look.
Apple solved those problems as well. Even now, with all of the complaints in the industry about deteriorating service, Apple is increasing service at their stores.
This is why they are being successful.
Sorry for the apparent rant. I guess the energy was leftover from my last post.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple solved those problems as well. Even now, with all of the complaints in the industry about deteriorating service, Apple is increasing service at their stores.
This is why they are being successful.
Mel-
Any idea if Apple has studied Toyota's method of continuous improvement? (I don't remember the name... is it "Six Sigma"?). Just curious.
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Mel-
Any idea if Apple has studied Toyota's method of continuous improvement? (I don't remember the name... is it "Six Sigma"?). Just curious.
Six Sigma is an idea that came from the good old USA. GE was one of the first companies to use it, very successfully, I might add.
Malcolm Baldrige is almost a GOD in Japan.
The site is here:
http://www.isixsigma.com/
I'm sure that Apple understands its aspects. I don't know if they are an officially certified company. Companies who are, usually advertise that. Apple doesn't do the kind of work, or have the kind of products that would fall under that umbrella.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=67
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen!
Originally posted by drakethegreat
I think the reason Apple will continue to grow is that Macs will be ever more appealing in the future. You will have the ability to dual boot and that will be a huge selling point. There is no longer an excuse not to switch really besides having the money. This is a for sure method to convert people to macs.
....
It just won't be very practical to run a hacked version of Mac OS X when it will run better on an a mac anyways. To me the people who most likely will run a hacked version of Mac OS X are the people who use Linux and compile their own kernels. They make up less then 1 percent of the population and aren't even a target market for manufactured computers.
You seem to think that running hacked versions of OS X is a "linux crowd" type of thing, where only a very small majority do it. That's most likely true. However, do you really think that the population of users who'll have no problem dual-booting their computers between windows and mac, and trying to keep files in sync since the file systems aren't compatible, and remembering what they need to do to run program X, is a large population? Hell, most computer users are good enough to get by with windows or the mac sitting in front of them and open the files they were working on yesterday. You'll see lots of Mac users buying these to get Windows support (well, non-supported support) so they can run their required windows program. But there's no way this is going to drive a whole lot of Windows users to switch. Or, if they do, they'll just boot up in windows anyway and stay there.
Finally, this one comment is the most important:
There is no longer an excuse not to switch really besides having the money.
Money is always the stumbling block. Esp. if you can get a dell, with a monitor, for $500, trying to sell a mac with monitor for more than twice that is still going to be a sticking point for a lot of people.
(Hey, the least apple could do is start selling computers at $600, with lousy specs, like Dell, to draw people into the store. But, nope, Apple likes to think of themselves as the high-class computer company, middle-class people need not bother coming in. If you have to ask how much a Mac costs, you can't afford it. That kind of thing.)
Originally posted by Louzer
[B]You seem to think that running hacked versions of OS X is a "linux crowd" type of thing, where only a very small majority do it. That's most likely true. However, do you really think that the population of users who'll have no problem dual-booting their computers between windows and mac, and trying to keep files in sync since the file systems aren't compatible, and remembering what they need to do to run program X, is a large population? Hell, most computer users are good enough to get by with windows or the mac sitting in front of them and open the files they were working on yesterday. You'll see lots of Mac users buying these to get Windows support (well, non-supported support) so they can run their required windows program. But there's no way this is going to drive a whole lot of Windows users to switch. Or, if they do, they'll just boot up in windows anyway and stay there.
My fingers are crossed.
Money is always the stumbling block. Esp. if you can get a dell, with a monitor, for $500, trying to sell a mac with monitor for more than twice that is still going to be a sticking point for a lot of people.
(Hey, the least apple could do is start selling computers at $600, with lousy specs, like Dell, to draw people into the store. But, nope, Apple likes to think of themselves as the high-class computer company, middle-class people need not bother coming in. If you have to ask how much a Mac costs, you can't afford it. That kind of thing.)
Apple has a problem with this part of the equation.
Dell doesn't get much, if any, publicity when they come out with really cheap and crappy machines. They just sell them. They also have these specials that we all know about that will let you buy many machines or monitors at up to 40% off. Apple NEVER has these kinds of sales.
Apple gets too much publicity when it comes out with anything. That's the way Jobs likes it. When you sell 4% of the machines out there, and when it has its own OS, which makes it difficult for people to simply got from a PC to a Mac, you need ALL the publicity that you can get.
I say that it's too much publicity, because when Apple comes out with a new machine, it's immediately compared to those cheap Dell machines, or even worse, to some no name built-it-yourself machine. Apple can't win here.
Therefore, if Apple comes out with some cheap Dell-like machine, the PC crowd will jump on it and say that it's a piece of crap, even though they wouldn't say that about the piece of crap that Dell is selling.
I see these comparisons in ARs, for example, all the time. The ONLY thing they consider to be important is performance/price. The idea that these things are absurdly flimsy, or that they have a battery life of not much more than an hour, etc., doesn't seem to matter.
And when I suggest here that Apple come out with less expensive (cheaper) cases, I get flamed! The iBook could be dropped $100 with a cheaper non-polycarbonate case. The PB could be dropped $150 with a non-aluminum case. Even the mini could be sold cheaper. The towers could lose $200 bucks if Apple went to a more standard case with conventional plastic.
That doesn't mean that the machines wouldn't still look good.
I agree that price does keep Apple out of a certain level. In that many people simply won't pay that much for a computer. Its not that important to them. Which I think is fine. Because there are some customers you really don't want.
Dell is somewhat at a point of saturation. Mosty everyone who would buy a Dell computer has bought one. Dell now has to figure out ways to ge its previoius customers to buy new Dell computers. Or move into other complementary markets such as consumer electronics.
Microsoft is in the same situation of trying to hard sell Vista to a market that is saturated with a variety of Windows operating systems. Bot Microsoft and Dell sell to the lowest common denominator of the computer market. Which are people who are not too computer savvy. Which forces more service support on Dell and has driven down the quality of Dells support. MS has to deal with people who do not know how to secure their computers and foster an enviornment where malicious code can run amok. HP is trying to figure out its identity. Struggling to find its place in the market for future growth.
Apple on the other hand is in a niche with a healthy and loyal customer base. Where largely the people who buy a Macintosh do so because they actively chose it. These people are generally more computer savvy. Not computer experts - but savvy. At this point Apple does not have many of the monolithic business problems of Dell or HP or MS. While it is enjoying record sales and is flush with cash.
Apple is in a good position at this point. From the evidence I see Apple does not want to compete directly against Dell or Microsoft. I don't think they need to.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don' think cost as that big of a problem. Evidenced in the fact that the Macintosh is selling really well at its price point. Most namely the iMac and the iBook.
I agree that price does keep Apple out of a certain level. In that many people simply won't pay that much for a computer. Its not that important to them. Which I think is fine. Because there are some customers you really don't want.
Dell is somewhat at a point of saturation. Mosty everyone who would buy a Dell computer has bought one. Dell now has to figure out ways to ge its previoius customers to buy new Dell computers. Or move into other complementary markets such as consumer electronics.
Microsoft is in the same situation of trying to hard sell Vista to a market that is saturated with a variety of Windows operating systems. Bot Microsoft and Dell sell to the lowest common denominator of the computer market. Which are people who are not too computer savvy. Which forces more service support on Dell and has driven down the quality of Dells support. MS has to deal with people who do not know how to secure their computers and foster an enviornment where malicious code can run amok. HP is trying to figure out its identity. Struggling to find its place in the market for future growth.
Apple on the other hand is in a niche with a healthy and loyal customer base. Where largely the people who buy a Macintosh do so because they actively chose it. These people are generally more computer savvy. Not computer experts - but savvy. At this point Apple does not have many of the monolithic business problems of Dell or HP or MS. While it is enjoying record sales and is flush with cash.
Apple is in a good position at this point. From the evidence I see Apple does not want to compete directly against Dell or Microsoft. I don't think they need to.
Dell doesn't have the problem that everyone who wants a Dell has one. Their problem is that their business model of online sales and cutting out the middleman, resulting in lower prices, has come to an end. Other companies are now making machines that compete with Dell on price. PC buyers have very little brand loyalty (yes, I know, there are always exceptions). If they are buying a Windows machine, they can go from one to the other without much loss.
Not so when they come to the Mac.
Apple is trying to increase their marketshare. They can't do that by appealing only to their ever shrinking base. The reason why I describe it as ever shrinking, is because people get older, move on to other things, etc. The base has to be constantly renewed.
And where will that renewal come from? Windows users, people buying their first machine, and even some Linux users.
So, Apple has to appeal to them as well. This means lower prices. Why do you think Apple came out with the Mini? Specifically to court Windows and Linux users. Jobs even said that.
Dell doesn't have the problem that everyone who wants a Dell has one. Their problem is that their business model of online sales and cutting out the middleman, resulting in lower prices, has come to an end.
That's basically what I was saying, just worded differently.
I should've said most everyone who would be in the market for a $500 dollar computer already has one.
Apple is trying to increase their marketshare. They can't do that by appealing only to their ever shrinking base. The reason why I describe it as ever shrinking, is because people get older, move on to other things, etc. The base has to be constantly renewed.
I wasn't saying Apple only has to depend on its current user base forever. I don't think it even sounded as though I was saying that.
And where will that renewal come from? Windows users, people buying their first machine, and even some Linux users.
So, Apple has to appeal to them as well. This means lower prices. Why do you think Apple came out with the Mini? Specifically to court Windows and Linux users. Jobs even said that.
I agree Apple needs switchers. Yes the mini was the headless low cost computer so many had been asking for.
But what you said assumes Apple's current user base are the only people willing to spend $1200 to $2500 for a computer. When PC users who want a performance machine are spending the basic same amount a G5 and software would cost.
For the vast majority of people you could sell them a white box with the word COMPUTER written on the side in bold type. This is the market I don't think Apple needs to compete in.
Originally posted by TenoBell
That's basically what I was saying, just worded differently.
I should've said most everyone who would be in the market for a $500 dollar computer already has one.
I wasn't saying Apple only has to depend on its current user base forever. I don't think it even sounded as though I was saying that.
I agree Apple needs switchers. Yes the mini was the headless low cost computer so many had been asking for.
But what you said assumes Apple's current user base are the only people willing to spend $1200 to $2500 for a computer. When PC users who want a performance machine are spending the basic same amount a G5 and software would cost.
For the vast majority of people you could sell them a white box with the word COMPUTER written on the side in bold type. This is the market I don't think Apple needs to compete in.
I'll give you your points.
But when you look at the price of the average computer these days, including LCD monitor, and printer, it is under $1,000. Like $800. And that includes the keyboard and mouse.
Remember, that's the average selling price of a PC. So when I say that Apple must try to compete there, they have to lure that average person over.
I'm not even interested in competing in the inexpensive space, even though you might think that that above price IS the inexpensive space. It's not. That space is the complete system for $400.
If Apple could sell a machine (complete) for under $1,000 that competes directly with that $800 deal, then they can compete. People do expect to spend a bit more, but not much more.
If Apple sold the Mini for the same price, but included the keyboard and mouse, people would have been much happier.
The small tower could be speced about equal to the iMac should sell for around $900 - $1200. The most notable feature being a PCI port.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I do agree Apple does have a hole in its product line. It needs small tower between the PowerMac and the mini. There is a huge gap there.
The small tower could be speced about equal to the iMac should sell for around $900 - $1200. The most notable feature being a PCI port.
I've been arguing for the need of a mini tower with a single processor for $999 since the G5 PM first came out. Now it could use a single dual core.
Amongst my friends at Apple, there has been agreement that it would be a good idea, but at the very highest level - nada.
I even did a basic design study. It's feasable.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don' think cost as that big of a problem. Evidenced in the fact that the Macintosh is selling really well at its price point. Most namely the iMac and the iBook.
Great. Except Dell sold 10 Million computers last quarter. Apple, if its a really, really, really, good quarter, may have sold 1.5 million. Tops. Yeah, cost is no factor whatsoever. Or maybe the cost is what keeps the marketshare low, which, in turn, keeps sales at these 'great' levels.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I agree Apple needs switchers. Yes the mini was the headless low cost computer so many had been asking for.
What? People have been looking for a under-powered, non-upgradable computer using slow parts and basically containing two+ year old tech? Well, OK, if you say so. The only people I know who loved it are those looking for a computer to shove into their car or pretend that its perfect as a media center device. Besides that, it didn't come close to the computer most people I've heard scream for (the low-cost mini tower with limited, but some, expandability options).
Originally posted by TenoBell
But what you said assumes Apple's current user base are the only people willing to spend $1200 to $2500 for a computer. When PC users who want a performance machine are spending the basic same amount a G5 and software would cost.
No, PC users get performance machines for less. Or they get more for that price. Depends on how you want to look at it. Get a tower with monitor for the mac, $2700 at least. Same for Dell? A lot less. Or, hey, I guess you could compare the Dell with the iMac, assuming you don't need exandability or anything. Just hope that you're iMac's monitor doesn't go pffft! in a year, since you'll have to replace the whole computer to get working again.
Oh, for all you "the price are the same for equivalent machines!" people out there, I don't want to hear about it. Guess what. Dell let's you configure computers to have what you WANT in them, not what Dell wants you to have. So if you want a computer with a 20" screen, but have no need for a DVD-RW drive, you don't have to get one! Or if you've got no need for firewire, or wireless access (who needs a desktop with wireless, really, if you expect decent network performance?), just leave it all out. I know its nice to add it in to push the price higher, but the point is choice, not what Apple forces you to get. (Oh, and in all those, things, very rarely does anyone throw in how much it costs to add 4 more USB ports into an iMac to match the number on a dell - oh, wait, you can't add anything to an iMac, you have to get another external device and stick it on your desk. Great! There's goes the neat desk the iMac was supposed to offer!)
Originally posted by TenoBell
For the vast majority of people you could sell them a white box with the word COMPUTER written on the side in bold type. This is the market I don't think Apple needs to compete in.
Right. Great attitude. Its the "We're better then those lowly people. We don't want them to play with our computers. Its their decision to not know what makes computers work and how to use them and all that. So let them use hard-to-use windows boxes!" attitude. Great job Tenobell! Nothing like alienating a large segment of society, so you can keep your little private cabal together. Oh, I know, you just don't want to be bothered by friends and relatives trying to get their macs to work...
Originally posted by melgross
Well, I'm not selling my 10,000 shares yet.
THAT PROVES IT!
APPLE IS FOR SNOBBY RICH ELEITEST BLUEBLOOD ARTIST TYPES! THE FUD IS TRUE!!!
Originally posted by Louzer
What? People have been looking for a under-powered, non-upgradable computer using slow parts and basically containing two+ year old tech? Well, OK, if you say so. The only people I know who loved it are those looking for a computer to shove into their car or pretend that its perfect as a media center device. Besides that, it didn't come close to the computer most people I've heard scream for (the low-cost mini tower with limited, but some, expandability options).
AMEN AMEN AMEN Preach it brother!!!
What I have said I want and would be willing to pay for (since last JAN when I got serious about buying a mac)
A decent, moddern, reasonably speedy chip
A NON AIO formfactor
easily upgradable with at least 2 ram slots and the abiliy to house 2 internal HDDs
These are features that I demand of any desktop PC I buy, regaurdless of budget. and is standard on every Dell and HP, even the sff units.
I COULD NOT GET THIS FROM APPLE FOR UNDER $2000!
So i bought a mini, while it is great, I could see the need for a gig or more of ram as I use many apps at once, a second HDD for media storage without having to buy some overpriced Lacie FW thing or homebrewing myown from old parts...ah well, the minute teh intel version of the final release is cracked, I will just build an AMD 64 rig (as I already own a tiger license) untill I can afford the insain PM pricepoints.
Great. Except Dell sold 10 Million computers last quarter. Apple, if its a really, really, really, good quarter, may have sold 1.5 million. Tops. Yeah, cost is no factor whatsoever. Or maybe the cost is what keeps the marketshare low, which, in turn, keeps sales at these 'great' levels.
Marketshare and profit are not necessarily connected and don't increase or decrease at the same rate. Per computer sale Apple is making more money than Dell.
What? People have been looking for a under-powered, non-upgradable computer using slow parts and basically containing two+ year old tech? Well, OK, if you say so.
Underpowered is relative. Underpowered for what task? If you want to play video games yes it is. If you want a general computer the mini is fine.
Oh, for all you "the price are the same for equivalent machines!" people out there, I don't want to hear about it.
This is what I said: "When PC users who want a performance machine are spending the basic same amount a G5 and software (SOFTWARE) would cost."
Dell let's you configure computers to have what you WANT in them, not what Dell wants you to have.
So why are you here? Go buy your configured Dell and be happy.
but the point is choice, not what Apple forces you to get.
Aren't we loosing perspective here? Apple doesn't force anybody to do anything. You either buy the computer or you don't. If the market didn't want what Apple was offering no one would buy it.
Great job Tenobell! Nothing like alienating a large segment of society, so you can keep your little private cabal together. Oh, I know, you just don't want to be bothered by friends and relatives trying to get their macs to work...
I don't know about all that.
Yeah it would be great if Apple lowered their prices. Yes I like it that Apple targets the more professional market and not the low value market.
There are some serious flaws in Dells discount selling practice. Eventually the bottom will fall out.
These are features that I demand of any desktop PC I buy, regaurdless of budget. and is standard on every Dell and HP, even the sff units.
Every PC does not offer all of those features at every price point. But its true you get more hardware features at a lower price point than Apple offers. What Apple does offer is better software at every point than most PC's offer.
a second HDD for media storage without having to buy some overpriced Lacie FW thing
I don't think they are expensive. I bought a 200GB Lacie that came with the newest version of Toast for $120.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't think they are expensive. I bought a 200GB Lacie that came with the newest version of Toast for $120.
interesting, I must not be shopping the right places.
the point is that I have somel old HDDs here that I could just toss into any off-the-shelf PC or a PMG5 if I wanted to, but I cannot do that with the mini where I really need the storage, and what the hell would it cost to design the thing to be consumer-servicable with an additional ram slot...is that too much to ask? To be honest, I dont care if it is the size of a car stereo...I have room for another mini or mid tower.
Originally posted by a_greer
THAT PROVES IT!
APPLE IS FOR SNOBBY RICH ELEITEST BLUEBLOOD ARTIST TYPES! THE FUD IS TRUE!!!
And how do you think we got to be "SNOBBY RICH ELEITEST BLUEBLOOD ARTIST TYPES!".