Neither do people who shop at Walmart - which is most people...
Ummm...yes we do...Sometimes high volume, high quantity is a good thing: many people wouldnt buy high end items from walmart, but look at every-day type stuff...
A pair of jeans that cost $12 at Walmart cost $19-23 at Sears or Macys. A bag of chips that costs $2 at Wamart usually costs like $2.50 at Kroger, walmarts competition here (and NOT a ma-and-pa opperation) Whats wrong with the laws of volume working for the consumer for once?
Pray tell how Apple is going to make money selling a $399 computer?
I think the reality is people want $399 computers for their own equally selfish reason. We wish to save more money whilst Apple continues to grow theirs.
I think it's rather daft though to say Apple continues to make the same mistakes. Go take a look at their net worth a couple of years ago. If this is a mistake then they need to be making more
The clientele you bring in at $399 aren't the people you're going to get rich on. Are they they ones who'll buy Apple Care? Are they the ones who'll buy lots of software? Not usually. They are the ones who'll clog your tech support lines ranting about everything known to mankind because they spent $400
I like that Macs are a bit exclusive. As long as Apple is healthy and moving forward I have no desire to see cheapskates with Macs. Nor do I want to see junky low cost macs. I know that's just me but Apple is doing well enough to corroborate the message that they "don't" need loss leader macs to make money.
However don't let me interrupt your attempts to dangle a carrot in front of Apple in the form of mythical millions of PC user just wanting to switch for the right price. More like low thousands from my perspective.
I agree with most of your points. It should be obvious that at $399, there is little if any profit and therefore a poor business model. Look at Dell, the pioneer of low cost pcs. They are getting hammered on wall street. They went from the penthouse to the shit house. IMO if Apple wants to capture the low end clientele they would need to liscense the OS software and let somebody like Dell or Lenovo make the box and figure out how to make a profit. Maybe they would capture a lot of new users, that is debateable. I don't think this is a good idea. IMO Apple is a niche player in the computer business and that's ok with me as long as they make cool innovative products.
Others are able to make money selling $299 or even $199 computers (including keyboard, mouse and even speakers), so it is not inconceivable for Apple to make money at the $399 price point. Yes, they may have to downgrade the processor to a Celeron, but if you look at the new Mini, there is not much there other than a processor, a $20 motherboard, $20 worth of DRAM and a HD.
The only companies making money are selling $299 desktops basically for revenue numbers whilst selling higher end server hardware and enterprise storage. HP, Dell, IBM etc don't give a damn about their desktop sales they want to get into a company at the Server level. If that means blowing out the desktops then sobeit. The consumer line is an afterthought..slap some stuff in a box..sell desktop space and ship the computer. Since Apple doesn't sell alot of Servers and RAID comparitively they have to sell slightly more expensive computers. The Mac mini isn't a standards based computer. They use more expensive 2.5" drives rather than 3.5". They have a nonstandard motherboard size of course which means they don't get the economies of scale that an ATX motherboard offers.
Quote:
The fundamental question is whether Apple wants to remain a niche player or to increase their Mac volume sales to a critical level to make Macs and OS-X a viable platform third party application developers for the foreseeable future. Thanks to iPod, Apple has a once in-the-life-of-the-corporation chance of increasing market share over 5% (or even 10%). However, the only way to make this happen is to provide a very cheap entry level platform to get as many people to switch as fast as possible.
I seriously doubt the only way to make this happen is to appeal to the lowest denominator. You've bought into the switch hype too much. Apple will remain a niche because it is what they are comfortable with. Bringing over hoardes of PC users lusting over cheap PCs will only clog your Tech Support lines. Why do you think that everyone is outsourcing to India? Because TS is a non revenue generation burden to companies. Cheap computers come at a cost that is hard to bear for some that value service.
The fundamental question is whether Apple wants to remain a niche player or to increase their Mac volume sales to a critical level to make Macs and OS-X a viable platform third party application developers for the foreseeable future. Thanks to iPod, Apple has a once in-the-life-of-the-corporation chance of increasing market share over 5% (or even 10%). However, the only way to make this happen is to provide a very cheap entry level platform to get as many people to switch as fast as possible. [/B]
Why does Apple have to increase market share? They currently are quite profitable and most of that profit comes from the computer business. Give up the ghost. Ms won the market share war a long time ago. There is no reason to go back and try to fight that all over again. We can debate the reasons why but it's history. As far as 3rd party developement, who cares? Apple is the one bringing out the apps that are advancing the platform. If Adobe or anyone else wants to join in, great.
A pair of jeans that cost $12 at Walmart cost $19-23 at Sears or Macys. A bag of chips that costs $2 at Wamart usually costs like $2.50 at Kroger, walmarts competition here (and NOT a ma-and-pa opperation) Whats wrong with the laws of volume working for the consumer for once?
You're equating jeans and potato chips to CPU chips?!
Oh, and I'll guarantee you that the Walmart jeans won't fit as well or last as long as the Sears or Macy's jeans. I've learned that through experience.
Why do folks assume that Apple is targeting the low end segments for their pool of switchers and not the pool of windows users that buy mid to high end PCs like the VIAO?
The iMacs are well positioned against the VA TV-PC series (20" WS + Pentium 4 630 3.0 Ghz, 1GB DDR2, 250GB HD, DVD-RW, Radeon X700, $2K) in both features and mindshare.
The mini does well against the VAIO RB53 (Pentium 4 630 3.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM DDR SDRAM, 200 GB HD, DVD+/-RW, $799). Which uses a Intel GMA 900 but does have expansion ports as a tower.
The target demographic IMHO buys iPods, XBox 360s, PSP, PS3, VIAO, B&O, Bose, etc and tend toward form over value. That's not the $399 PC demographic.
Nor is that $399 demographic all that valuable to a company like Apple. It's likely a detriment to value of the branding.
Why does Apple have to increase market share? They currently are quite profitable and most of that profit comes from the computer business. Give up the ghost. Ms won the market share war a long time ago. There is no reason to go back and try to fight that all over again. We can debate the reasons why but it's history. As far as 3rd party developement, who cares? Apple is the one bringing out the apps that are advancing the platform. If Adobe or anyone else wants to join in, great.
Without 3rd party development, Apple as a consumer computing platform will die. Simple as that.
Now that the revenue improved and profitability became the focus, Apple is making the same mistakes they did over and over in the old glory days: pricing too high to maximize short term profits at the expense of long term product unit growth.
I guess Steve decided the current market share in the PC segment is sufficient.
Instead of bringing the Mac Mini down to $399 price point, taking it to $599 will kill most of the potential low-end PC customers (yes there are tens of millions of them) who would have considered the Mini as a potential platform for "switching".
Now it is an expensive "cute" toy targeted at a much smaller potential market...
And what is the deal with the $99 leather covers?
Apple is making a lot of mistakes, but the Mini isn't one of them. Let's be honest here, it is still a premium computer.
Why does Apple have to increase market share? They currently are quite profitable and most of that profit comes from the computer business. Give up the ghost. Ms won the market share war a long time ago. There is no reason to go back and try to fight that all over again. We can debate the reasons why but it's history. As far as 3rd party developement, who cares? Apple is the one bringing out the apps that are advancing the platform. If Adobe or anyone else wants to join in, great.
For now, but that can change in a heartbeat. As for adobe, if they go so does their users and hence the mac as a platform. At our marketshare, we have no room for error, especially considering how much desktop publishing is done on the platform.
For now, but that can change in a heartbeat. As for adobe, if they go so does their users and hence the mac as a platform. At our marketshare, we have no room for error, especially considering how much desktop publishing is done on the platform.
According to melgross, whom I believe, mac market share on photoshop is only 25%. Back when Apple was losing money hand over fist it was like 50%. I don't think such a corrolation( loss of Adobe users=mac doom) exists. Again look at apps that are being developed for the mac platform. The groundbreaking ones are coming from Apple. Sure Apple will take all the help they can get, but I think they are ready and willing to advance the platform from a hardware and software position, via os developement and apps.
Without 3rd party development, Apple as a consumer computing platform will die. Simple as that.
Conventional wisdom, but I don't think thats true anymore. Certainly Apple is less reliant on 3rd party developers for apps and I think this continues going forward.
Conventional wisdom, but I don't think thats true anymore. Certainly Apple is less reliant on 3rd party developers for apps and I think this continues going forward.
Very true. People don't have a problem running predominantly microsoft enviromnents.
Microsoft isn't stupid...they let ISV's enjoy a market until it shows promise and then they move in and squash the vendor.
Apple isn't quite so predatory but they'd be fools not to ensure that there are applications that use their programming talents.
I personally don't feel like Apple is making huge mistakes. Sure I'd love to see them move into different areas but then I'm not thinking fully about what said committment entails.
They obviously are doing something right. iTunes has dominated for a couple of years when it seemed like a new competitor was said to be ready to knock them off their perch every week.
As someone who sells/recommends PCs in a corporate environment everyday I truly cannot undertand how Apple can deliver the Mac mini for $599 using modern CPU/RAM and being shackled with a far more expensive hard drive.
According to melgross, whom I believe, mac market share on photoshop is only 25%. Back when Apple was losing money hand over fist it was like 50%. I don't think such a corrolation( loss of Adobe users=mac doom) exists. Again look at apps that are being developed for the mac platform. The groundbreaking ones are coming from Apple. Sure Apple will take all the help they can get, but I think they are ready and willing to advance the platform from a hardware and software position, via os developement and apps.
What that figure tells me is that Mac users are several times more likely to use photoshop. What it doesn't tell you is what percentage of the Mac userbase is using photoshop. If it's 20% of the userbase, especially since they'd be more apt to buy the more expensive PowerMacs or MacBooks, it would be devastating to loose those users. Most of them are professionals and not platform zealots, so they won't refuse to go PC for the sake of Apple.
What that figure tells me is that Mac users are several times more likely to use photoshop. What it doesn't tell you is what percentage of the Mac userbase is using photoshop. If it's 20% of the userbase, especially since they'd be more apt to buy the more expensive PowerMacs or MacBooks, it would be devastating to loose those users. Most of them are professionals and not platform zealots, so they won't refuse to go PC for the sake of Apple.
We will have to agree to disagree. Adobe support right now is tepid at best. And why not? Mac users just don't drive their sales anymore. Sure it would be a disappointment if Adobe decided to just port to windows or placed a priority on windows developement for CS. But it looks like Apple is prepared for that. They are commited to developing apps, some of which compete directly with Adobe, and they have a whole new consumer electronics push. These diminish the importance of Adobe to the Apple's success. It's just good sense IMO.
We will have to agree to disagree. Adobe support right now is tepid at best. And why not? Mac users just don't drive their sales anymore. Sure it would be a disappointment if Adobe decided to just port to windows or placed a priority on windows developement for CS. But it looks like Apple is prepared for that. They are commited to developing apps, some of which compete directly with Adobe, and they have a whole new consumer electronics push. These diminish the importance of Adobe to the Apple's success. It's just good sense IMO.
They put more resources into the Windows version because there are 19 windows users for every one of us. It's pure economics.
They put more resources into the Windows version because there are 19 windows users for every one of us. It's pure economics.
Ummm...if Adobe Photoshop Mac market share is 25% (as has been posited above...though sounds low to me) then the number you are looking for is 3 "windows users for every one of us."
They put more resources into the Windows version because there are 19 windows users for every one of us. It's pure economics.
Agreed, therefore Apple should not be reliant on adobe for macs success, no? If otherwise, then Apple should buy Adobe to ensure continued support and success. Perhaps Apple considered this and decided they can just compete against Adobe.
Comments
Originally posted by macshark
Neither do people who shop at Walmart - which is most people...
Ummm...yes we do...Sometimes high volume, high quantity is a good thing: many people wouldnt buy high end items from walmart, but look at every-day type stuff...
A pair of jeans that cost $12 at Walmart cost $19-23 at Sears or Macys. A bag of chips that costs $2 at Wamart usually costs like $2.50 at Kroger, walmarts competition here (and NOT a ma-and-pa opperation) Whats wrong with the laws of volume working for the consumer for once?
Originally posted by hmurchison
Pray tell how Apple is going to make money selling a $399 computer?
I think the reality is people want $399 computers for their own equally selfish reason. We wish to save more money whilst Apple continues to grow theirs.
I think it's rather daft though to say Apple continues to make the same mistakes. Go take a look at their net worth a couple of years ago. If this is a mistake then they need to be making more
The clientele you bring in at $399 aren't the people you're going to get rich on. Are they they ones who'll buy Apple Care? Are they the ones who'll buy lots of software? Not usually. They are the ones who'll clog your tech support lines ranting about everything known to mankind because they spent $400
I like that Macs are a bit exclusive. As long as Apple is healthy and moving forward I have no desire to see cheapskates with Macs. Nor do I want to see junky low cost macs. I know that's just me but Apple is doing well enough to corroborate the message that they "don't" need loss leader macs to make money.
However don't let me interrupt your attempts to dangle a carrot in front of Apple in the form of mythical millions of PC user just wanting to switch for the right price. More like low thousands from my perspective.
I agree with most of your points. It should be obvious that at $399, there is little if any profit and therefore a poor business model. Look at Dell, the pioneer of low cost pcs. They are getting hammered on wall street. They went from the penthouse to the shit house. IMO if Apple wants to capture the low end clientele they would need to liscense the OS software and let somebody like Dell or Lenovo make the box and figure out how to make a profit. Maybe they would capture a lot of new users, that is debateable. I don't think this is a good idea. IMO Apple is a niche player in the computer business and that's ok with me as long as they make cool innovative products.
Others are able to make money selling $299 or even $199 computers (including keyboard, mouse and even speakers), so it is not inconceivable for Apple to make money at the $399 price point. Yes, they may have to downgrade the processor to a Celeron, but if you look at the new Mini, there is not much there other than a processor, a $20 motherboard, $20 worth of DRAM and a HD.
The only companies making money are selling $299 desktops basically for revenue numbers whilst selling higher end server hardware and enterprise storage. HP, Dell, IBM etc don't give a damn about their desktop sales they want to get into a company at the Server level. If that means blowing out the desktops then sobeit. The consumer line is an afterthought..slap some stuff in a box..sell desktop space and ship the computer. Since Apple doesn't sell alot of Servers and RAID comparitively they have to sell slightly more expensive computers. The Mac mini isn't a standards based computer. They use more expensive 2.5" drives rather than 3.5". They have a nonstandard motherboard size of course which means they don't get the economies of scale that an ATX motherboard offers.
The fundamental question is whether Apple wants to remain a niche player or to increase their Mac volume sales to a critical level to make Macs and OS-X a viable platform third party application developers for the foreseeable future. Thanks to iPod, Apple has a once in-the-life-of-the-corporation chance of increasing market share over 5% (or even 10%). However, the only way to make this happen is to provide a very cheap entry level platform to get as many people to switch as fast as possible.
I seriously doubt the only way to make this happen is to appeal to the lowest denominator. You've bought into the switch hype too much. Apple will remain a niche because it is what they are comfortable with. Bringing over hoardes of PC users lusting over cheap PCs will only clog your Tech Support lines. Why do you think that everyone is outsourcing to India? Because TS is a non revenue generation burden to companies. Cheap computers come at a cost that is hard to bear for some that value service.
Great points. Apple doesn't have to take over the world. Maybe they finally realize that.
Originally posted by macshark
[
The fundamental question is whether Apple wants to remain a niche player or to increase their Mac volume sales to a critical level to make Macs and OS-X a viable platform third party application developers for the foreseeable future. Thanks to iPod, Apple has a once in-the-life-of-the-corporation chance of increasing market share over 5% (or even 10%). However, the only way to make this happen is to provide a very cheap entry level platform to get as many people to switch as fast as possible. [/B]
Why does Apple have to increase market share? They currently are quite profitable and most of that profit comes from the computer business. Give up the ghost. Ms won the market share war a long time ago. There is no reason to go back and try to fight that all over again. We can debate the reasons why but it's history. As far as 3rd party developement, who cares? Apple is the one bringing out the apps that are advancing the platform. If Adobe or anyone else wants to join in, great.
Originally posted by a_greer
A pair of jeans that cost $12 at Walmart cost $19-23 at Sears or Macys. A bag of chips that costs $2 at Wamart usually costs like $2.50 at Kroger, walmarts competition here (and NOT a ma-and-pa opperation) Whats wrong with the laws of volume working for the consumer for once?
You're equating jeans and potato chips to CPU chips?!
Oh, and I'll guarantee you that the Walmart jeans won't fit as well or last as long as the Sears or Macy's jeans. I've learned that through experience.
The iMacs are well positioned against the VA TV-PC series (20" WS + Pentium 4 630 3.0 Ghz, 1GB DDR2, 250GB HD, DVD-RW, Radeon X700, $2K) in both features and mindshare.
The mini does well against the VAIO RB53 (Pentium 4 630 3.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM DDR SDRAM, 200 GB HD, DVD+/-RW, $799). Which uses a Intel GMA 900 but does have expansion ports as a tower.
The target demographic IMHO buys iPods, XBox 360s, PSP, PS3, VIAO, B&O, Bose, etc and tend toward form over value. That's not the $399 PC demographic.
Nor is that $399 demographic all that valuable to a company like Apple. It's likely a detriment to value of the branding.
Vinea
Originally posted by backtomac
Why does Apple have to increase market share? They currently are quite profitable and most of that profit comes from the computer business. Give up the ghost. Ms won the market share war a long time ago. There is no reason to go back and try to fight that all over again. We can debate the reasons why but it's history. As far as 3rd party developement, who cares? Apple is the one bringing out the apps that are advancing the platform. If Adobe or anyone else wants to join in, great.
Without 3rd party development, Apple as a consumer computing platform will die. Simple as that.
Originally posted by macshark
Now that the revenue improved and profitability became the focus, Apple is making the same mistakes they did over and over in the old glory days: pricing too high to maximize short term profits at the expense of long term product unit growth.
I guess Steve decided the current market share in the PC segment is sufficient.
Instead of bringing the Mac Mini down to $399 price point, taking it to $599 will kill most of the potential low-end PC customers (yes there are tens of millions of them) who would have considered the Mini as a potential platform for "switching".
Now it is an expensive "cute" toy targeted at a much smaller potential market...
And what is the deal with the $99 leather covers?
Apple is making a lot of mistakes, but the Mini isn't one of them. Let's be honest here, it is still a premium computer.
Originally posted by backtomac
Why does Apple have to increase market share? They currently are quite profitable and most of that profit comes from the computer business. Give up the ghost. Ms won the market share war a long time ago. There is no reason to go back and try to fight that all over again. We can debate the reasons why but it's history. As far as 3rd party developement, who cares? Apple is the one bringing out the apps that are advancing the platform. If Adobe or anyone else wants to join in, great.
For now, but that can change in a heartbeat. As for adobe, if they go so does their users and hence the mac as a platform. At our marketshare, we have no room for error, especially considering how much desktop publishing is done on the platform.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
For now, but that can change in a heartbeat. As for adobe, if they go so does their users and hence the mac as a platform. At our marketshare, we have no room for error, especially considering how much desktop publishing is done on the platform.
According to melgross, whom I believe, mac market share on photoshop is only 25%. Back when Apple was losing money hand over fist it was like 50%. I don't think such a corrolation( loss of Adobe users=mac doom) exists. Again look at apps that are being developed for the mac platform. The groundbreaking ones are coming from Apple. Sure Apple will take all the help they can get, but I think they are ready and willing to advance the platform from a hardware and software position, via os developement and apps.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Without 3rd party development, Apple as a consumer computing platform will die. Simple as that.
Conventional wisdom, but I don't think thats true anymore. Certainly Apple is less reliant on 3rd party developers for apps and I think this continues going forward.
Originally posted by backtomac
Conventional wisdom, but I don't think thats true anymore. Certainly Apple is less reliant on 3rd party developers for apps and I think this continues going forward.
Very true. People don't have a problem running predominantly microsoft enviromnents.
Microsoft isn't stupid...they let ISV's enjoy a market until it shows promise and then they move in and squash the vendor.
Apple isn't quite so predatory but they'd be fools not to ensure that there are applications that use their programming talents.
I personally don't feel like Apple is making huge mistakes. Sure I'd love to see them move into different areas but then I'm not thinking fully about what said committment entails.
They obviously are doing something right. iTunes has dominated for a couple of years when it seemed like a new competitor was said to be ready to knock them off their perch every week.
As someone who sells/recommends PCs in a corporate environment everyday I truly cannot undertand how Apple can deliver the Mac mini for $599 using modern CPU/RAM and being shackled with a far more expensive hard drive.
Amazing.
Originally posted by backtomac
According to melgross, whom I believe, mac market share on photoshop is only 25%. Back when Apple was losing money hand over fist it was like 50%. I don't think such a corrolation( loss of Adobe users=mac doom) exists. Again look at apps that are being developed for the mac platform. The groundbreaking ones are coming from Apple. Sure Apple will take all the help they can get, but I think they are ready and willing to advance the platform from a hardware and software position, via os developement and apps.
What that figure tells me is that Mac users are several times more likely to use photoshop. What it doesn't tell you is what percentage of the Mac userbase is using photoshop. If it's 20% of the userbase, especially since they'd be more apt to buy the more expensive PowerMacs or MacBooks, it would be devastating to loose those users. Most of them are professionals and not platform zealots, so they won't refuse to go PC for the sake of Apple.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
What that figure tells me is that Mac users are several times more likely to use photoshop. What it doesn't tell you is what percentage of the Mac userbase is using photoshop. If it's 20% of the userbase, especially since they'd be more apt to buy the more expensive PowerMacs or MacBooks, it would be devastating to loose those users. Most of them are professionals and not platform zealots, so they won't refuse to go PC for the sake of Apple.
We will have to agree to disagree. Adobe support right now is tepid at best. And why not? Mac users just don't drive their sales anymore. Sure it would be a disappointment if Adobe decided to just port to windows or placed a priority on windows developement for CS. But it looks like Apple is prepared for that. They are commited to developing apps, some of which compete directly with Adobe, and they have a whole new consumer electronics push. These diminish the importance of Adobe to the Apple's success. It's just good sense IMO.
Originally posted by backtomac
We will have to agree to disagree. Adobe support right now is tepid at best. And why not? Mac users just don't drive their sales anymore. Sure it would be a disappointment if Adobe decided to just port to windows or placed a priority on windows developement for CS. But it looks like Apple is prepared for that. They are commited to developing apps, some of which compete directly with Adobe, and they have a whole new consumer electronics push. These diminish the importance of Adobe to the Apple's success. It's just good sense IMO.
They put more resources into the Windows version because there are 19 windows users for every one of us. It's pure economics.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
They put more resources into the Windows version because there are 19 windows users for every one of us. It's pure economics.
Ummm...if Adobe Photoshop Mac market share is 25% (as has been posited above...though sounds low to me) then the number you are looking for is 3 "windows users for every one of us."
Originally posted by BenRoethig
They put more resources into the Windows version because there are 19 windows users for every one of us. It's pure economics.
Agreed, therefore Apple should not be reliant on adobe for macs success, no? If otherwise, then Apple should buy Adobe to ensure continued support and success. Perhaps Apple considered this and decided they can just compete against Adobe.