[B]Because waiting for an appropriate Tuesday or Thursday is a particularly irksome delay? Given that any product release requires orchestration of manufacturing, shipping, etc the planning of an event shouldn't be the tall pole in the tent.
Because waiting for a particular MONTH for that particular Tuesday is an irksome delay! And, why does it have to be a Tuesday anyway?
Quote:
The little events don't appear to take much effort given the limited scale. The last was dissapointing but you don't think something like the MacBook deserves a little fanfare (aka event)?
It isn't Apple's efforts that matter (though they could probably use that effort for something more useful). It's the annoyance that it causes the press,the investment community, and the public in general that's the problem.
Quote:
You don't view it as more than just an upgraded iPod?
The MBP was not an iPod, and an industry even is a good place to intro it.
But, an upgraded iPod? No.
Quote:
So you're saying that waiting for Jan/July MacWorld for new machine releases is better/faster than a launch event for the MacBook in May? Or perhaps the MacBook is a "speed bump" release?
I didn't say that at any time. re-read my posts. I said that when something is rteady, it should be released. Whenever that is. That doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't then SHOW it at their main shows, or at trade shows.
Hell, they have intro'd many devices, and software before they were ready for release. The could do that as well. That builds up anticipation, not releasing it AT an event. Then it's out already. No anticipation there.
Quote:
How about the iPhone? Just a press release kinda launch?
It depends. first of all, if it's just a phone, it's really not such a big deal. If it's a phone with a virtual network, aka Target, that would be different. That would be major.
But, don't forget that there is already so much anticipation about these supposed devices that Apple *might* launch, that a press release is probably all they need. What, you don't think that it would be just plastered all over the news services and web sites anyway?
Quote:
Hmmm, yes the openess of the Spindler era was a model of success for Apple...
Don't muse. Spindler was an idiot. He wasn't there very long. The board should never have put a financial guy in charge of a technology company. It had nothing to do with openness. In fact, After Jobs left the company, it had it's greatest success under John Scully, even though he made his own mistakes. It's not as though Jobs hasn'r made plenty since he came back.
Quote:
As for sales plummeting after Jobs came back, presumably you mean in 2000 with the cube. Certainly you are not referring to the fall of 1998 where the iMac was the best selling computer in the nation, Apple had managed a full year of proftiability, sales over prediction and stock at 52 week highs...
The Cube was part of it. But sales continued to drop at a steady and increasing rate, as the overall market grew at a good rate. The iMac was the largest selling MODEL in the nation. Among hundreds of different models.
Quote:
Not bad for a guy that had been "interim CEO" for a year unless you want to credit Amelio for that.
Actually, Amelio had done most of the necessary changes before Jobs officially took over.
Quote:
While the secrecy that Jobs prefers may not be the root cause of success it has been an element of his success. Part of that is coming out with products that are innovative (and risky) and perhaps do so requires more than a bit of showmanship to pull off.
Sometimes it works. Sometimes you end up with the Cube.
Not only is it not the root cause of Apple's new sucess, it has probably held them back.
Quote:
The examples you use are not clear. In any case, it can be argued that a product is "ready" for release when Jobs is willing to get up on a stage and keynote it.
The examples are pretty clear.
And if a product is only ready because Jobs wants to be the one to announce it, then that's pretty childish!
Quote:
So the root cause in the decline in corporate market share is because of poor release scheduling on the part of Apple in the Jobs era(s)? That may be a factor but a "major problem"?
I never said that it was the *root* problem. But is is part of the problem.
Quote:
I would think that a company in Redmond and one in Austin might have some minor factor in this decline.
Apple can't follow with the same products that the PC industry has, because it doesn't run the same software. That's pretty obvious. It doesn't even have to be stated, as you hint did.
Quote:
In any case, few corporations decides to go through the trouble of switching platforms because of temporary channel/development delays or Microsoft would be a pale shadow of itself.
MS is a very different can of worms. When business runs on your software because everything depends upon it, delays will make no more than a small dent in your sales. When you are a small company, with a small marketshare that most business software doesn't run on, every delay is perceived as a problem, and some of those contemplating the platform will be put off by what they see is a lack of reliability.
Quote:
Care to provide a source for sales numbers to show the "majorness" of the problem? Versus say the dominance of Windows?
"Majorness"? No one can prove, by the numbers, that any of this is true, either what you say, or what I say. But, the numerous articles over the years regarding this problem have shown that there is truth to it. Even on these boards, we've seen the occasional person say they can't wait.
Quote:
Or is this one of those "sales plummeted when Jobs returned" kind of statistic?
Well, you can look the numbers up for yourself, if you want. Apple's marketshare was over twice what it was just a year and a half, or so, ago, when he took over. That's tells the direction Apple was going in. It was hoped that he would staunch that bleeding, but, until the iPod stimulated Mac sales (mostly by luck, it seems), Apple's marketshare just kept on declining.
Quote:
You can point to a few screw ups when the results are "major slide" and the CEO gets invited to leave. Granted it was merely a contributing factor and not a root cause but commiting to a large production run is more risk than a small production run.
So you say. But, unless the product is a dog, as the Cube was, that isn't true. The production will get sold through, and will be compensated for in the next production run. That's normal.
Quote:
When you are pursuing "innovation" you can always run into the factor that you produce something not quite ready for the market (*cough* Newton *cough*). A smaller launch production run is a risk mitigator even if it limits initial sales. The key is being able to ramp quickly if you have a winner on your hands.
Yes. The Newton sucked, until the very last model, which started to sell well, until Jobs killed it.
Quote:
Yes, the product that didn't sell is a "at fault"...that's a given. It is also a given that Apple will have some number of "Cubes" in its future. How many do you prefer to be buried at sea?
Actually, they shouldn't have been buried at sea. They should have been given to schools and libraries, which are always a generation behind, and who would have been VERY happy to get them, helping to solidify Apple's streangth in those areas. That's what MS does. THAT, would have been good publicity.
Quote:
Also, would committing each Mac design to a large initial run make Apple designers more or less tentative?
No, because the amount spent on R&D, and setting up the production lines, as well as securing minimum amounts of parts and materials is so expensive that it isn't done that way. Enough isn't secured for a small production run. Even when a small run is done, there is enough materials ready for far more production.
good riddance, G4 is from 1999. Ick, and take that nasty plastimer case too.
ew i know. i hate the case and i have no more desk room for it, so i put my whole laptop under my desk and wired everything to it, ie speakers, usb hub, firewire hub, external HDD, mouse/keyboard, and a 17 inch dell monitor on my desk
Lots of people are commenting on what Apple will do with the MacBook instead of what they can and should do. Keep in mind that this laptop will probably replace the 12" PB. Obviously there will be lower end models, however at least one model should be stocked with:
512 RAM upgradeable
128 mb Radeon x1600
Backlit Keyboard
3.5 plus hour battery life
isight
1" thin
1.8 ghz Core Duo
80 gb hd
I'd be willing to pay around 1599 or 1699 for that, because I want a more portable laptop with equivalent power to the PRO's , exactly what the 12" PB was.
In general a company shouold never move backwards. So why would Apple put in integrated graphics when the previous iBooks had dedicated graphics. Even if integrated can work as well as a cheap graphics card, it will still appear as a step in the wrong direction. I think Apple will have at least one model with dedicated graphics. The best question is why don't they just make macs more customizable, then it wouldn't even be an issue.
In general a company shouold never move backwards. So why would Apple put in integrated graphics when the previous iBooks had dedicated graphics. Even if integrated can work as well as a cheap graphics card, it will still appear as a step in the wrong direction. I think Apple will have at least one model with dedicated graphics. The best question is why don't they just make macs more customizable, then it wouldn't even be an issue.
Since they did that with the Mini, why wouldn't they do that here as well?
I've never actually looked at the FAQ page here, but it reads like a generic instruction page.
The attachment language says the administrator may enable such functionality, but my guess is that Kasper has elected not to so as to avoid the AI servers becoming image hosting land.
What I always do, and as far as I know what everybody does, is upload to a free image hosting site and copy the URL, as has been mentioned (those of us who aren't running our own sites or servers, anyway).
In general a company shouold never move backwards. So why would Apple put in integrated graphics when the previous iBooks had dedicated graphics. Even if integrated can work as well as a cheap graphics card, it will still appear as a step in the wrong direction. I think Apple will have at least one model with dedicated graphics. The best question is why don't they just make macs more customizable, then it wouldn't even be an issue.
Intel IG is supposedly very close in performance to cheap cards and way less expensive. Lennovo is coming out with a new line of widescreen laptops. Only the top model even offers dedicated graphics as an option. The lower models ONLY come with intel IG. If Apple offers dedicated video as an option that will be nice but I'm not expecting it. People who think it will only come with a video card are going to be disappointed. Link below to Lennovo laptops with specs.
I've never actually looked at the FAQ page here, but it reads like a generic instruction page.
The attachment language says the administrator may enable such functionality, but my guess is that Kasper has elected not to so as to avoid the AI servers becoming image hosting land.
What I always do, and as far as I know what everybody does, is upload to a free image hosting site and copy the URL, as has been mentioned (those of us who aren't running our own sites or servers, anyway).
Well, now that I know this, I'll try it shortly. I just read that, and it seemed as though that's how it should work. When Lundy told me that he didn't have a problem uploading a pic from my account, I just assumed that he did it the way the FAQ said it should be done. But when I next wanted to do that, it couldn't be done. He didn't tell me that it should be done some other way. It didn't occur to me that the way to do it was through using vB code, which isn't usually used for images.
Apple is different from other companies in the respect that they only have a few options available to meet the needs of every customer, whereas complanies like lenovo are producing a plethora of models one of which is sure to be what your looking for. Furthermore, I agree that Apple may not include dedicated graphics, but considering the advent of "boot camp", there is no bettet time than now to try and swing a few gamers over to a MAC. This will only happen if Apple releases products which contain competitive hardware and pricing. The 13" screen should justify lowering the price from the 15" MBP for essentially the same components. Look how similar the 14" ibook are and the 12" PB and you'll see why Apple's Pro LIne has been about a superior design more than superior performance.
Because waiting for a particular MONTH for that particular Tuesday is an irksome delay! And, why does it have to be a Tuesday anyway?
It isn't Apple's efforts that matter (though they could probably use that effort for something more useful). It's the annoyance that it causes the press,the investment community, and the public in general that's the problem.
Hell, they have intro'd many devices, and software before they were ready for release. The could do that as well. That builds up anticipation, not releasing it AT an event. Then it's out already. No anticipation there.
But, don't forget that there is already so much anticipation about these supposed devices that Apple *might* launch, that a press release is probably all they need. What, you don't think that it would be just plastered all over the news services and web sites anyway?
Essentially, you're arguing that Apple should just get rid of its marketing department. Cut it out entirely. Because when a product's finished being engineered and has been released to manufacturing, you want it to be released.
While I understand your sentiment, I think, you fail to take into account the necessity of timing the release of products--there are reasons you would release a product in May instead of April, beyond simply whether the product is done or not. Likewise, there are reasons that Apple chooses to release most products on a Tuesday or Wednesday. I'll not ennumerate those reasons, because I'm not in Apple's marketing department, but I think you're underestimating a $60B corporation if you think that it's completely on a whim that they choose those days.
As for events: publicity never hurts. The blurb on CNN-Headline News about Apple releasing a new iPod or computer because they held an event (like in September or October of last year) makes a big difference in product/company awareness.
I will not argue that in the Jobs-era Apple has not been too dependent on events, because for a while they were. However, I think that's changed, which is why you saw the iPod nano 2gb released on a "random" Tuesday, or what have you. However, beyond simple publicity, think of how Apple's serve its community: MacWorlds, WWDC, and even Jobs' invitation-only events create quite a buzz among the Mac-faithful. Who hasn't had problems accessing AppleInsider or MacNN on the morning before Jobs' keynote? Events create a rallying point for Mac users, which, admittedly, benefits some users more than others (read: you're not the only Mac user).
Oh, and to get to the masses, Apple needs events more than press releases. A press release would be plastered all over websites, but let's face it: the people who read this site, MacNN, Engadget, or anywhere else a press release would be posted, are not enough to keep Apple in the black. CNN isn't as likely to pick up a story from an Apple press release as they are from a big event at the Moscone Center, where they can get a little video of Jobs waving a new product around and espousing its benefits.
Apple is different from other companies in the respect that they only have a few options available to meet the needs of every customer, whereas complanies like lenovo are producing a plethora of models one of which is sure to be what your looking for. Furthermore, I agree that Apple may not include dedicated graphics, but considering the advent of "boot camp", there is no bettet time than now to try and swing a few gamers over to a MAC. This will only happen if Apple releases products which contain competitive hardware and pricing. The 13" screen should justify lowering the price from the 15" MBP for essentially the same components. Look how similar the 14" ibook are and the 12" PB and you'll see why Apple's Pro LIne has been about a superior design more than superior performance.
You're looking backwards not forwards. Back when Apple had ppc chips it had few ways to distinguish the pro and consumer lines. All they could do is push design. Now they can seperate based on features and design. I would wait and see how a intel Macbook performs with integrated graphics. For most users it will probably be more than adequate.
Because waiting for a particular MONTH for that particular Tuesday is an irksome delay! And, why does it have to be a Tuesday anyway?
No clue why they choose Tuesday. I don't get waiting for a particular month though if you're complaining about random small launch events that don't occur in the old Jan/July Apr/Sept time table.
Quote:
The MBP was not an iPod, and an industry even is a good place to intro it.
But, an upgraded iPod? No.
Not the MBP but the upcoming MacBook. Do you believe it should be released with either just a press release or at a major event?
Or do you believe a smaller May event (like potentially the one under discussion) would be a better choice because its ready in May and not July?
Quote:
I didn't say that at any time. re-read my posts. I said that when something is rteady, it should be released. Whenever that is. That doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't then SHOW it at their main shows, or at trade shows.
So your position is that they should launch the MacBook without an event, just a press release and then showcase it again in July? Mmmkay.
Quote:
It depends. first of all, if it's just a phone, it's really not such a big deal. If it's a phone with a virtual network, aka Target, that would be different. That would be major.
If its "just a phone" they screwed it up and the capital is better invested in something else IMHO.
Always possible for them to screw it up. I expect them to and I'm happy if they do because it shows risk taking of the variety I like.
Quote:
But, don't forget that there is already so much anticipation about these supposed devices that Apple *might* launch, that a press release is probably all they need. What, you don't think that it would be just plastered all over the news services and web sites anyway?
Do you believe that they would generate more and better coverage with Jobs doing his RDF thing or with just a press release?
Do you believe that something like the MacBook deserves that kind of treatment?
Quote:
Don't muse. Spindler was an idiot. He wasn't there very long. The board should never have put a financial guy in charge of a technology company. It had nothing to do with openness.
Spindler was the guy that allowed clones and I think around that "open" timeframe you talk about.
Hmmm...financial guy...with an engineering degree from Rheinische Fachhochschule that worked marketing for DEC, then Intel and finally Apple Europe? More marketing guy than financial. Of course if you're going to pick on putting business guys in charge of tech companies why do you like Sculley?
The guy that liked low margins and growing market share but wasn't a Michael Dell? The guy that put Spindler in charge as COO in 1990 and essentially lame ducked himself into CTO to watch over his pet projects?
Quote:
The Cube was part of it. But sales continued to drop at a steady and increasing rate, as the overall market grew at a good rate. The iMac was the largest selling MODEL in the nation. Among hundreds of different models.
Uh huh...yes, market share dropped (because of smaller growth) but sales dropped? Lets see...sales just prior to Jobs...600-650K computers per quarter. Sales from the iMac pushed that number to around 900K per quarter until the usual Apple dip.
Either way, that's hardly "sales continued to drop" unless your math treats 700K to 1.4M sales as less than 600K-650K sales.
Quote:
And if a product is only ready because Jobs wants to be the one to announce it, then that's pretty childish!
A product is typically more ready when a CEO is willing to take the stage and demo the danged thing than when they are not willing to take the stage and demo the danged thing.
CEOs have little sense of humor when it comes to looking like idiots in front of an audience.
Quote:
Apple can't follow with the same products that the PC industry has, because it doesn't run the same software. That's pretty obvious. It doesn't even have to be stated, as you hint did.
Obviously it bears stating if you seem to think that corporate market share was impacted by the return of Jobs and his sekrit ways.
Quote:
MS is a very different can of worms. When business runs on your software because everything depends upon it, delays will make no more than a small dent in your sales. When you are a small company, with a small marketshare that most business software doesn't run on, every delay is perceived as a problem, and some of those contemplating the platform will be put off by what they see is a lack of reliability.
If your business runs on MacOS/OSX and your applications and workflows are built in that environment it is not a trivial decision to move to a different OS. It is no different than transitioning from Windows to something else except that there is an expecation that whatever software you're running has some equivalent in the Windows world for the most part.
In any case, this is hardly a link to anything that suggests that this issue was a significant contributor to lost corporate market share.
As opposed to say Spindler essentially abandoning the enterprise market to concentrate on soho, edu and home markets.
Quote:
"Majorness"? No one can prove, by the numbers, that any of this is true, either what you say, or what I say. But, the numerous articles over the years regarding this problem have shown that there is truth to it. Even on these boards, we've seen the occasional person say they can't wait.
If there are numerous articles that suggest that Apple lost significant share because of slow product ramps then it should be easy enough to find one?
Quote:
Well, you can look the numbers up for yourself, if you want.
I did...1Q results for 1999:
"Net sales increased sequentially $154 million or 10% during the first quarter of 1999 as compared to the fourth quarter of 1998. The sequential revenue increase is attributable to a 13% rise in Macintosh unit shipments and incremental net sales from MacOS 8.5 upgrades. The rise in unit sales during the first quarter is attributable to a 21% increase in iMac unit sales compared to the fourth quarter of 1998 and a similar 15% increase in unit shipments of Power Macintosh G3 professional Macintosh systems partially offset by a 17% sequential decline in unit shipments of G3 Powerbooks resulting from the introduction of several new Powerbook models during the fourth quarter of 1998."
From the Fool Year in Review 1998:
"The company's market share had been eroding for years. It slipped again from 5.7% worldwide in 1996 to just 3.6% in 1997, with that number dropping to 2.6% in the December quarter. Its U.S. share dropped from 7.4% in '96 to 4.6% in '97 and 3.3% in the December period. This downward spiral resulted from the successful Wintel partnership that provided more user-friendly, Windows-based PCs that sapped Apple of its main competitive advantage. In response, Apple looked like a deer caught in the headlights: confused and scared.
...
What a difference a year makes. In 1998, Apple's stock price has tripled thanks to a dramatic turnaround that Jobs has produced through a series of material and spiritual transformations.
...
The iMac's success is indicative of the broader turnaround. The company sold 278,000 units in its first six weeks on the market, beating predictions that the company would sell 100,000 to 150,000 units during its fiscal fourth quarter. The iMac was the top selling desktop in superstores for August and September, according to ZD Market Intelligence. Meanwhile, International Data Corp. says Apple is now growing faster than the overall PC market, moving up to 5% of the U.S. market last quarter from 4.4% a year ago."
Yes, they stumbled in 2000 with the cube. They couldn't sustain the growth of '98 very long due to the Cube putting a big bleeding hole in their lineup. But they recovered and are again beating projections. So the cycle continues. It doesn't look like they have many dogs in the product cycle this go around but you never know...perhaps there is an iTablet in the works and it'll be a real dog.
I hope not. I use PC tablets and think a Mac tablet would hopefully be great but you never know when Apple and Jobs will stumble again. Its a much bigger risk for Apple than Dell (even if Dell took a recent beating and Apple is the current darling).
Quote:
So you say. But, unless the product is a dog, as the Cube was, that isn't true. The production will get sold through, and will be compensated for in the next production run. That's normal.
Repeated assertion does not an argument make. Dogs will appear in every product line up. The amount of risk a company is willing to take varies. Apple is apparently conservative. If you'd like to support your case you want to show that a crunched supply (in Jan/Jul no less) represents more long term risk than over building.
Do you suggest that always swinging for the fence is the optimal launch strategy? Because I can likely find sufficient number of case studies of businesses that overbuilt infrastructure and product and ended up dead because they over predicted sales.
That's kinda "normal" too.
Quote:
No, because the amount spent on R&D, and setting up the production lines, as well as securing minimum amounts of parts and materials is so expensive that it isn't done that way. Enough isn't secured for a small production run. Even when a small run is done, there is enough materials ready for far more production.
You certainly do not release a product expecting its a dog. On the other hand, a smaller run requires less capital investment minimizing your downside risk. The cost is short term channel shortages.
Given that the normal release cycle is post Christmas anyway you have several months to get your house in order if you have hit on your hands before the next Christmas cycle.
[B]No clue why they choose Tuesday. I don't get waiting for a particular month though if you're complaining about random small launch events that don't occur in the old Jan/July Apr/Sept time table.
I mean that if it's ready in the beginning of May (just for arguments sake), then they shouldn't wait until the end of the month to intro and release it. They should just put out a notice, do their ads, and have it in the stors.
Then, if they do have some multi purpose event, such as this store opening, or a trade show, or whatever, they can talk it up.
Quote:
Not the MBP but the upcoming MacBook. Do you believe it should be released with either just a press release or at a major event?
Or do you believe a smaller May event (like potentially the one under discussion) would be a better choice because its ready in May and not July?
Well, if it's ready just a week before something like the opening of a major store, then fine, intro and release it then. a week is no biggie, as long as it's more than just one product.
Quote:
So your position is that they should launch the MacBook without an event, just a press release and then showcase it again in July? Mmmkay.
Yes, exactly. Get it out there. We all have been waiting for it. The press has been waiting for it. The general population has been waiting for it. When Apple releases it, that will be a big event in itself. There will be the same feeding frenzy they would have had anyway.
Quote:
If its "just a phone" they screwed it up and the capital is better invested in something else IMHO.
Of course. Unless it's more than just a phone.
Quote:
Always possible for them to screw it up. I expect them to and I'm happy if they do because it shows risk taking of the variety I like.
My finances won't be happy if they screw it up. Heh!
Quote:
Do you believe that they would generate more and better coverage with Jobs doing his RDF thing or with just a press release?
That's the whole point. I don't think that Job's "RDF" works on anyone who isn't already attuned to it. i.e. the fans. It doesn't affect me. Does it really affect you?
Quote:
Do you believe that something like the MacBook deserves that kind of treatment?
You've hit it with that one. The Macbook is a piece of equipment. It doesn't "deserve" anything. People "deserve".
Quote:
Spindler was the guy that allowed clones and I think around that "open" timeframe you talk about.
Again, the policies as to the product mix has nothing to do with this. Jobs could allow clones, and still be doing things the way he does them.
Quote:
Hmmm...financial guy...with an engineering degree from Rheinische Fachhochschule that worked marketing for DEC, then Intel and finally Apple Europe? More marketing guy than financial. Of course if you're going to pick on putting business guys in charge of tech companies why do you like Sculley?
He was the financial guy at Apple. The bean counter.
In an interview right after he was promoted, he was asked that getting there after two visionaries, Jobs and Scully, did he think that it took a visionary to run a company like Apple?
His answer was that; "It doesn't take a visionary to run Apple."
He was right. He ran it right into the ground!
Quote:
The guy that liked low margins and growing market share but wasn't a Michael Dell? The guy that put Spindler in charge as COO in 1990 and essentially lame ducked himself into CTO to watch over his pet projects?
Nothing wrong with Spindler being COO, or CFO. But, anything else was a bad choice.
Quote:
Uh huh...yes, market share dropped (because of smaller growth) but sales dropped? Lets see...sales just prior to Jobs...600-650K computers per quarter. Sales from the iMac pushed that number to around 900K per quarter until the usual Apple dip.
Either way, that's hardly "sales continued to drop" unless your math treats 700K to 1.4M sales as less than 600K-650K sales.
Apple's sales dropped from about 4 million units a year to less than 3.3 million a year, and except for a short lived bump up, stayed there until 18 months or so ago.
Quote:
A product is typically more ready when a CEO is willing to take the stage and demo the danged thing than when they are not willing to take the stage and demo the danged thing.
CEOs have little sense of humor when it comes to looking like idiots in front of an audience.
You don't know that.
And about looking like an idiot, you're wrong there as well. Gates looks that way whenever he does a demo, as it hardly ever works right.
Recently While demonstrating the new Origami, the CEO of Samsung, or whoever it is that's producing it, looked like an idiot, as did the other two people who demo'd it after him.
Quote:
Obviously it bear stating if you seem to think that corporate market share was impacted by the return of Jobs and his sekrit ways.
Apple wasn't doing too well until after the iPod was out for over a year, and they got it on Windows as well. That had a salutary effect on Apple's fortunes. It was luck more than anything else. Jobs said some time ago that they weren't planning on putting in on Windows, but the demand was so great. They weren't planning the iTunes store, but they thought it was a good idea when the iPods took off.
That worked out well
Quote:
If your business runs on MacOS/OSX and your applications and workflows are built in that environment it is not a trivial decision to move to a different OS. It is no different than transitioning from Windows to something else except that there is an expecation that whatever software you're running has some equivalent in the Windows world for the most part.
In any case, this is hardly a link to anything that suggests that this issue was a significant contributor to lost corporate market share.
As opposed to say Spindler essentially abandoning the enterprise market to concentrate on soho, edu and home markets.
No. It's vastly different. There are massive corporate apps that simply don't run in OS X. There are tens of thousands of in-house apps that don't run on OS X. Those companies and governments can't simply move over because they need these apps. Hardware as well. Back room apps, network apps, etc. A tremendous undertaking.
One of the first things Jobs said when he first came back was that , in response to a question about the enterprise, was that "The enterprise is not our customer." Brilliant!!!
There's no point in mentioning Spindler anymore, because I've already said that he's an idiot. Enough.
Quote:
If there are numerous articles that suggest that Apple lost significant share because of slow product ramps then it should be easy enough to find one?
Great, find articles on Google if you want to. Half the time you can't find something you read yesterday. You think I'm making it up? That's ridiculous
Quote:
I did...1Q results for 1999:
"Net sales increased sequentially $154 million or 10% during the first quarter of 1999 as compared to the fourth quarter of 1998. The sequential revenue increase is attributable to a 13% rise in Macintosh unit shipments and incremental net sales from MacOS 8.5 upgrades. The rise in unit sales during the first quarter is attributable to a 21% increase in iMac unit sales compared to the fourth quarter of 1998 and a similar 15% increase in unit shipments of Power Macintosh G3 professional Macintosh systems partially offset by a 17% sequential decline in unit shipments of G3 Powerbooks resulting from the introduction of several new Powerbook models during the fourth quarter of 1998."
From the Fool Year in Review 1998:
"The company's market share had been eroding for years. It slipped again from 5.7% worldwide in 1996 to just 3.6% in 1997, with that number dropping to 2.6% in the December quarter. Its U.S. share dropped from 7.4% in '96 to 4.6% in '97 and 3.3% in the December period. This downward spiral resulted from the successful Wintel partnership that provided more user-friendly, Windows-based PCs that sapped Apple of its main competitive advantage. In response, Apple looked like a deer caught in the headlights: confused and scared.
...
What a difference a year makes. In 1998, Apple's stock price has tripled thanks to a dramatic turnaround that Jobs has produced through a series of material and spiritual transformations.
...
The iMac's success is indicative of the broader turnaround. The company sold 278,000 units in its first six weeks on the market, beating predictions that the company would sell 100,000 to 150,000 units during its fiscal fourth quarter. The iMac was the top selling desktop in superstores for August and September, according to ZD Market Intelligence. Meanwhile, International Data Corp. says Apple is now growing faster than the overall PC market, moving up to 5% of the U.S. market last quarter from 4.4% a year ago."
The marketshare went up for a while. I did say that there was a bump. But it declined to under 2.8% until a couple of years ago. Since then it has been rising.
Quote:
Yes, they stumbled in 2000 with the cube. Nor could they sustain the growth if '98 very long. But they recovered and are again beating projections. So the cycle continues. It doesn't look like they have many dogs in the product cycle this go around but you never know...perhaps there is an iTablet in the works and it'll be a real dog.
I hope not. I use PC tablets and think a Mac tablet would hopefully be great but you never know when Apple and Jobs will stumble again. Its a much bigger risk for Apple than Dell (even if Dell took a recent beating and Apple is the current darling).
Tablets are a dog in the marketplace. They are half of 1% of the laptop market, which is about half of the overall market. Not a great area for Apple to get into.
Quote:
Repeated assertion does not an argument make. Dogs will appear in every product line up. The amount of risk a company is willing to take varies. Apple is apparently conservative. If you'd like to support your case you want to show that a crunched supply (in Jan/Jul no less) represents more long term risk than over building.
The difficuly, as you should know, is that without a control, you will never know. All you can see is the evaluations done by the firms like NPD that do this checking, and interviewing.
Quote:
Do you suggest that always swinging for the fence is the optimal launch strategy? Because I can likely find sufficient number of case studies of businesses that overbuilt infrastructure and product and ended up dead because they over predicted sales.
I never said that. but that's what Jobs does. He rarely comes out with a quiet product that is major. Even the small products are often given more push than they deserve. Remember iPod socks? That was a joke of a while.
Quote:
You certainly do not release a product expecting its a dog. On the other hand, a smaller run requires less capital investment minimizing your downside risk. The cost is short term channel shortages.
You're assuming that I'm talking about producing twice as much product. I'm not. Apple always seems to be about 20% or so down from what they need. 20% is not going to break the bank. But, it would satisfy the demand. you apparently don't read these forums when a new product comes out, or you would see the anger whan Apple comes up short, and then starts to lengthen the wait times.
Quote:
Given that the normal release cycle is post Christmas anyway you have several months to get your house in order if you have hit on your hands before the next Christmas cycle.
It doesn't even have to be a hit. It could simply be a fairly well selling product, like the Mini's, which sell well, but not spectacularly.
Look, I think that we've truely drained this discussion. I'm willing to call a truce, if you are.
Comments
Originally posted by iridedasupabus
byebye 12" ibook g4 :-D
good riddance, G4 is from 1999. Ick, and take that nasty plastimer case too.
Originally posted by vinea
[B]Because waiting for an appropriate Tuesday or Thursday is a particularly irksome delay? Given that any product release requires orchestration of manufacturing, shipping, etc the planning of an event shouldn't be the tall pole in the tent.
Because waiting for a particular MONTH for that particular Tuesday is an irksome delay! And, why does it have to be a Tuesday anyway?
The little events don't appear to take much effort given the limited scale. The last was dissapointing but you don't think something like the MacBook deserves a little fanfare (aka event)?
It isn't Apple's efforts that matter (though they could probably use that effort for something more useful). It's the annoyance that it causes the press,the investment community, and the public in general that's the problem.
You don't view it as more than just an upgraded iPod?
The MBP was not an iPod, and an industry even is a good place to intro it.
But, an upgraded iPod? No.
So you're saying that waiting for Jan/July MacWorld for new machine releases is better/faster than a launch event for the MacBook in May? Or perhaps the MacBook is a "speed bump" release?
I didn't say that at any time. re-read my posts. I said that when something is rteady, it should be released. Whenever that is. That doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't then SHOW it at their main shows, or at trade shows.
Hell, they have intro'd many devices, and software before they were ready for release. The could do that as well. That builds up anticipation, not releasing it AT an event. Then it's out already. No anticipation there.
How about the iPhone? Just a press release kinda launch?
It depends. first of all, if it's just a phone, it's really not such a big deal. If it's a phone with a virtual network, aka Target, that would be different. That would be major.
But, don't forget that there is already so much anticipation about these supposed devices that Apple *might* launch, that a press release is probably all they need. What, you don't think that it would be just plastered all over the news services and web sites anyway?
Hmmm, yes the openess of the Spindler era was a model of success for Apple...
Don't muse. Spindler was an idiot. He wasn't there very long. The board should never have put a financial guy in charge of a technology company. It had nothing to do with openness. In fact, After Jobs left the company, it had it's greatest success under John Scully, even though he made his own mistakes. It's not as though Jobs hasn'r made plenty since he came back.
As for sales plummeting after Jobs came back, presumably you mean in 2000 with the cube. Certainly you are not referring to the fall of 1998 where the iMac was the best selling computer in the nation, Apple had managed a full year of proftiability, sales over prediction and stock at 52 week highs...
The Cube was part of it. But sales continued to drop at a steady and increasing rate, as the overall market grew at a good rate. The iMac was the largest selling MODEL in the nation. Among hundreds of different models.
Not bad for a guy that had been "interim CEO" for a year unless you want to credit Amelio for that.
Actually, Amelio had done most of the necessary changes before Jobs officially took over.
While the secrecy that Jobs prefers may not be the root cause of success it has been an element of his success. Part of that is coming out with products that are innovative (and risky) and perhaps do so requires more than a bit of showmanship to pull off.
Sometimes it works. Sometimes you end up with the Cube.
Not only is it not the root cause of Apple's new sucess, it has probably held them back.
The examples you use are not clear. In any case, it can be argued that a product is "ready" for release when Jobs is willing to get up on a stage and keynote it.
The examples are pretty clear.
And if a product is only ready because Jobs wants to be the one to announce it, then that's pretty childish!
So the root cause in the decline in corporate market share is because of poor release scheduling on the part of Apple in the Jobs era(s)? That may be a factor but a "major problem"?
I never said that it was the *root* problem. But is is part of the problem.
I would think that a company in Redmond and one in Austin might have some minor factor in this decline.
Apple can't follow with the same products that the PC industry has, because it doesn't run the same software. That's pretty obvious. It doesn't even have to be stated, as you hint did.
In any case, few corporations decides to go through the trouble of switching platforms because of temporary channel/development delays or Microsoft would be a pale shadow of itself.
MS is a very different can of worms. When business runs on your software because everything depends upon it, delays will make no more than a small dent in your sales. When you are a small company, with a small marketshare that most business software doesn't run on, every delay is perceived as a problem, and some of those contemplating the platform will be put off by what they see is a lack of reliability.
Care to provide a source for sales numbers to show the "majorness" of the problem? Versus say the dominance of Windows?
"Majorness"? No one can prove, by the numbers, that any of this is true, either what you say, or what I say. But, the numerous articles over the years regarding this problem have shown that there is truth to it. Even on these boards, we've seen the occasional person say they can't wait.
Or is this one of those "sales plummeted when Jobs returned" kind of statistic?
Well, you can look the numbers up for yourself, if you want. Apple's marketshare was over twice what it was just a year and a half, or so, ago, when he took over. That's tells the direction Apple was going in. It was hoped that he would staunch that bleeding, but, until the iPod stimulated Mac sales (mostly by luck, it seems), Apple's marketshare just kept on declining.
You can point to a few screw ups when the results are "major slide" and the CEO gets invited to leave. Granted it was merely a contributing factor and not a root cause but commiting to a large production run is more risk than a small production run.
So you say. But, unless the product is a dog, as the Cube was, that isn't true. The production will get sold through, and will be compensated for in the next production run. That's normal.
When you are pursuing "innovation" you can always run into the factor that you produce something not quite ready for the market (*cough* Newton *cough*). A smaller launch production run is a risk mitigator even if it limits initial sales. The key is being able to ramp quickly if you have a winner on your hands.
Yes. The Newton sucked, until the very last model, which started to sell well, until Jobs killed it.
Yes, the product that didn't sell is a "at fault"...that's a given. It is also a given that Apple will have some number of "Cubes" in its future. How many do you prefer to be buried at sea?
Actually, they shouldn't have been buried at sea. They should have been given to schools and libraries, which are always a generation behind, and who would have been VERY happy to get them, helping to solidify Apple's streangth in those areas. That's what MS does. THAT, would have been good publicity.
Also, would committing each Mac design to a large initial run make Apple designers more or less tentative?
No, because the amount spent on R&D, and setting up the production lines, as well as securing minimum amounts of parts and materials is so expensive that it isn't done that way. Enough isn't secured for a small production run. Even when a small run is done, there is enough materials ready for far more production.
Originally posted by sandau
good riddance, G4 is from 1999. Ick, and take that nasty plastimer case too.
ew i know. i hate the case and i have no more desk room for it, so i put my whole laptop under my desk and wired everything to it, ie speakers, usb hub, firewire hub, external HDD, mouse/keyboard, and a 17 inch dell monitor on my desk
512 RAM upgradeable
128 mb Radeon x1600
Backlit Keyboard
3.5 plus hour battery life
isight
1" thin
1.8 ghz Core Duo
80 gb hd
I'd be willing to pay around 1599 or 1699 for that, because I want a more portable laptop with equivalent power to the PRO's , exactly what the 12" PB was.
999 core solo
1099 - 1399 core duo
512 mb standard
integrated graphics all across the line
i'm expecting a 1-inch thick mac mini with a 13-inch screen basically.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
my guess...
999 core solo
1099 - 1399 core duo
512 mb standard
integrated graphics all across the line
i'm expecting a 1-inch thick mac mini with a 13-inch screen basically.
Ditto
Originally posted by iCollegeBook
In general a company shouold never move backwards. So why would Apple put in integrated graphics when the previous iBooks had dedicated graphics. Even if integrated can work as well as a cheap graphics card, it will still appear as a step in the wrong direction. I think Apple will have at least one model with dedicated graphics. The best question is why don't they just make macs more customizable, then it wouldn't even be an issue.
Since they did that with the Mini, why wouldn't they do that here as well?
It all comes down to costs/performance.
I've never actually looked at the FAQ page here, but it reads like a generic instruction page.
The attachment language says the administrator may enable such functionality, but my guess is that Kasper has elected not to so as to avoid the AI servers becoming image hosting land.
What I always do, and as far as I know what everybody does, is upload to a free image hosting site and copy the URL, as has been mentioned (those of us who aren't running our own sites or servers, anyway).
Originally posted by iCollegeBook
In general a company shouold never move backwards. So why would Apple put in integrated graphics when the previous iBooks had dedicated graphics. Even if integrated can work as well as a cheap graphics card, it will still appear as a step in the wrong direction. I think Apple will have at least one model with dedicated graphics. The best question is why don't they just make macs more customizable, then it wouldn't even be an issue.
Intel IG is supposedly very close in performance to cheap cards and way less expensive. Lennovo is coming out with a new line of widescreen laptops. Only the top model even offers dedicated graphics as an option. The lower models ONLY come with intel IG. If Apple offers dedicated video as an option that will be nice but I'm not expecting it. People who think it will only come with a video card are going to be disappointed. Link below to Lennovo laptops with specs.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2323
Originally posted by addabox
Mel--about the image thing:
I've never actually looked at the FAQ page here, but it reads like a generic instruction page.
The attachment language says the administrator may enable such functionality, but my guess is that Kasper has elected not to so as to avoid the AI servers becoming image hosting land.
What I always do, and as far as I know what everybody does, is upload to a free image hosting site and copy the URL, as has been mentioned (those of us who aren't running our own sites or servers, anyway).
Well, now that I know this, I'll try it shortly. I just read that, and it seemed as though that's how it should work. When Lundy told me that he didn't have a problem uploading a pic from my account, I just assumed that he did it the way the FAQ said it should be done. But when I next wanted to do that, it couldn't be done. He didn't tell me that it should be done some other way. It didn't occur to me that the way to do it was through using vB code, which isn't usually used for images.
Live and learn!
Originally posted by melgross
Because waiting for a particular MONTH for that particular Tuesday is an irksome delay! And, why does it have to be a Tuesday anyway?
It isn't Apple's efforts that matter (though they could probably use that effort for something more useful). It's the annoyance that it causes the press,the investment community, and the public in general that's the problem.
Hell, they have intro'd many devices, and software before they were ready for release. The could do that as well. That builds up anticipation, not releasing it AT an event. Then it's out already. No anticipation there.
But, don't forget that there is already so much anticipation about these supposed devices that Apple *might* launch, that a press release is probably all they need. What, you don't think that it would be just plastered all over the news services and web sites anyway?
Essentially, you're arguing that Apple should just get rid of its marketing department. Cut it out entirely. Because when a product's finished being engineered and has been released to manufacturing, you want it to be released.
While I understand your sentiment, I think, you fail to take into account the necessity of timing the release of products--there are reasons you would release a product in May instead of April, beyond simply whether the product is done or not. Likewise, there are reasons that Apple chooses to release most products on a Tuesday or Wednesday. I'll not ennumerate those reasons, because I'm not in Apple's marketing department, but I think you're underestimating a $60B corporation if you think that it's completely on a whim that they choose those days.
As for events: publicity never hurts. The blurb on CNN-Headline News about Apple releasing a new iPod or computer because they held an event (like in September or October of last year) makes a big difference in product/company awareness.
I will not argue that in the Jobs-era Apple has not been too dependent on events, because for a while they were. However, I think that's changed, which is why you saw the iPod nano 2gb released on a "random" Tuesday, or what have you. However, beyond simple publicity, think of how Apple's serve its community: MacWorlds, WWDC, and even Jobs' invitation-only events create quite a buzz among the Mac-faithful. Who hasn't had problems accessing AppleInsider or MacNN on the morning before Jobs' keynote? Events create a rallying point for Mac users, which, admittedly, benefits some users more than others (read: you're not the only Mac user).
Oh, and to get to the masses, Apple needs events more than press releases. A press release would be plastered all over websites, but let's face it: the people who read this site, MacNN, Engadget, or anywhere else a press release would be posted, are not enough to keep Apple in the black. CNN isn't as likely to pick up a story from an Apple press release as they are from a big event at the Moscone Center, where they can get a little video of Jobs waving a new product around and espousing its benefits.
Originally posted by iCollegeBook
Apple is different from other companies in the respect that they only have a few options available to meet the needs of every customer, whereas complanies like lenovo are producing a plethora of models one of which is sure to be what your looking for. Furthermore, I agree that Apple may not include dedicated graphics, but considering the advent of "boot camp", there is no bettet time than now to try and swing a few gamers over to a MAC. This will only happen if Apple releases products which contain competitive hardware and pricing. The 13" screen should justify lowering the price from the 15" MBP for essentially the same components. Look how similar the 14" ibook are and the 12" PB and you'll see why Apple's Pro LIne has been about a superior design more than superior performance.
You're looking backwards not forwards. Back when Apple had ppc chips it had few ways to distinguish the pro and consumer lines. All they could do is push design. Now they can seperate based on features and design. I would wait and see how a intel Macbook performs with integrated graphics. For most users it will probably be more than adequate.
Originally posted by melgross
Because waiting for a particular MONTH for that particular Tuesday is an irksome delay! And, why does it have to be a Tuesday anyway?
No clue why they choose Tuesday. I don't get waiting for a particular month though if you're complaining about random small launch events that don't occur in the old Jan/July Apr/Sept time table.
The MBP was not an iPod, and an industry even is a good place to intro it.
But, an upgraded iPod? No.
Not the MBP but the upcoming MacBook. Do you believe it should be released with either just a press release or at a major event?
Or do you believe a smaller May event (like potentially the one under discussion) would be a better choice because its ready in May and not July?
I didn't say that at any time. re-read my posts. I said that when something is rteady, it should be released. Whenever that is. That doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't then SHOW it at their main shows, or at trade shows.
So your position is that they should launch the MacBook without an event, just a press release and then showcase it again in July? Mmmkay.
It depends. first of all, if it's just a phone, it's really not such a big deal. If it's a phone with a virtual network, aka Target, that would be different. That would be major.
If its "just a phone" they screwed it up and the capital is better invested in something else IMHO.
Always possible for them to screw it up. I expect them to and I'm happy if they do because it shows risk taking of the variety I like.
But, don't forget that there is already so much anticipation about these supposed devices that Apple *might* launch, that a press release is probably all they need. What, you don't think that it would be just plastered all over the news services and web sites anyway?
Do you believe that they would generate more and better coverage with Jobs doing his RDF thing or with just a press release?
Do you believe that something like the MacBook deserves that kind of treatment?
Don't muse. Spindler was an idiot. He wasn't there very long. The board should never have put a financial guy in charge of a technology company. It had nothing to do with openness.
Spindler was the guy that allowed clones and I think around that "open" timeframe you talk about.
Hmmm...financial guy...with an engineering degree from Rheinische Fachhochschule that worked marketing for DEC, then Intel and finally Apple Europe? More marketing guy than financial. Of course if you're going to pick on putting business guys in charge of tech companies why do you like Sculley?
The guy that liked low margins and growing market share but wasn't a Michael Dell? The guy that put Spindler in charge as COO in 1990 and essentially lame ducked himself into CTO to watch over his pet projects?
The Cube was part of it. But sales continued to drop at a steady and increasing rate, as the overall market grew at a good rate. The iMac was the largest selling MODEL in the nation. Among hundreds of different models.
Uh huh...yes, market share dropped (because of smaller growth) but sales dropped? Lets see...sales just prior to Jobs...600-650K computers per quarter. Sales from the iMac pushed that number to around 900K per quarter until the usual Apple dip.
Either way, that's hardly "sales continued to drop" unless your math treats 700K to 1.4M sales as less than 600K-650K sales.
And if a product is only ready because Jobs wants to be the one to announce it, then that's pretty childish!
A product is typically more ready when a CEO is willing to take the stage and demo the danged thing than when they are not willing to take the stage and demo the danged thing.
CEOs have little sense of humor when it comes to looking like idiots in front of an audience.
Apple can't follow with the same products that the PC industry has, because it doesn't run the same software. That's pretty obvious. It doesn't even have to be stated, as you hint did.
Obviously it bears stating if you seem to think that corporate market share was impacted by the return of Jobs and his sekrit ways.
MS is a very different can of worms. When business runs on your software because everything depends upon it, delays will make no more than a small dent in your sales. When you are a small company, with a small marketshare that most business software doesn't run on, every delay is perceived as a problem, and some of those contemplating the platform will be put off by what they see is a lack of reliability.
If your business runs on MacOS/OSX and your applications and workflows are built in that environment it is not a trivial decision to move to a different OS. It is no different than transitioning from Windows to something else except that there is an expecation that whatever software you're running has some equivalent in the Windows world for the most part.
In any case, this is hardly a link to anything that suggests that this issue was a significant contributor to lost corporate market share.
As opposed to say Spindler essentially abandoning the enterprise market to concentrate on soho, edu and home markets.
"Majorness"? No one can prove, by the numbers, that any of this is true, either what you say, or what I say. But, the numerous articles over the years regarding this problem have shown that there is truth to it. Even on these boards, we've seen the occasional person say they can't wait.
If there are numerous articles that suggest that Apple lost significant share because of slow product ramps then it should be easy enough to find one?
Well, you can look the numbers up for yourself, if you want.
I did...1Q results for 1999:
"Net sales increased sequentially $154 million or 10% during the first quarter of 1999 as compared to the fourth quarter of 1998. The sequential revenue increase is attributable to a 13% rise in Macintosh unit shipments and incremental net sales from MacOS 8.5 upgrades. The rise in unit sales during the first quarter is attributable to a 21% increase in iMac unit sales compared to the fourth quarter of 1998 and a similar 15% increase in unit shipments of Power Macintosh G3 professional Macintosh systems partially offset by a 17% sequential decline in unit shipments of G3 Powerbooks resulting from the introduction of several new Powerbook models during the fourth quarter of 1998."
From the Fool Year in Review 1998:
"The company's market share had been eroding for years. It slipped again from 5.7% worldwide in 1996 to just 3.6% in 1997, with that number dropping to 2.6% in the December quarter. Its U.S. share dropped from 7.4% in '96 to 4.6% in '97 and 3.3% in the December period. This downward spiral resulted from the successful Wintel partnership that provided more user-friendly, Windows-based PCs that sapped Apple of its main competitive advantage. In response, Apple looked like a deer caught in the headlights: confused and scared.
...
What a difference a year makes. In 1998, Apple's stock price has tripled thanks to a dramatic turnaround that Jobs has produced through a series of material and spiritual transformations.
...
The iMac's success is indicative of the broader turnaround. The company sold 278,000 units in its first six weeks on the market, beating predictions that the company would sell 100,000 to 150,000 units during its fiscal fourth quarter. The iMac was the top selling desktop in superstores for August and September, according to ZD Market Intelligence. Meanwhile, International Data Corp. says Apple is now growing faster than the overall PC market, moving up to 5% of the U.S. market last quarter from 4.4% a year ago."
http://www.fool.com/Features/1998/sp...view_win01.htm
Not quite the story you paint now is it?
Yes, they stumbled in 2000 with the cube. They couldn't sustain the growth of '98 very long due to the Cube putting a big bleeding hole in their lineup. But they recovered and are again beating projections. So the cycle continues. It doesn't look like they have many dogs in the product cycle this go around but you never know...perhaps there is an iTablet in the works and it'll be a real dog.
I hope not. I use PC tablets and think a Mac tablet would hopefully be great but you never know when Apple and Jobs will stumble again. Its a much bigger risk for Apple than Dell (even if Dell took a recent beating and Apple is the current darling).
So you say. But, unless the product is a dog, as the Cube was, that isn't true. The production will get sold through, and will be compensated for in the next production run. That's normal.
Repeated assertion does not an argument make. Dogs will appear in every product line up. The amount of risk a company is willing to take varies. Apple is apparently conservative. If you'd like to support your case you want to show that a crunched supply (in Jan/Jul no less) represents more long term risk than over building.
Do you suggest that always swinging for the fence is the optimal launch strategy? Because I can likely find sufficient number of case studies of businesses that overbuilt infrastructure and product and ended up dead because they over predicted sales.
That's kinda "normal" too.
No, because the amount spent on R&D, and setting up the production lines, as well as securing minimum amounts of parts and materials is so expensive that it isn't done that way. Enough isn't secured for a small production run. Even when a small run is done, there is enough materials ready for far more production.
You certainly do not release a product expecting its a dog. On the other hand, a smaller run requires less capital investment minimizing your downside risk. The cost is short term channel shortages.
Given that the normal release cycle is post Christmas anyway you have several months to get your house in order if you have hit on your hands before the next Christmas cycle.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
[B]No clue why they choose Tuesday. I don't get waiting for a particular month though if you're complaining about random small launch events that don't occur in the old Jan/July Apr/Sept time table.
I mean that if it's ready in the beginning of May (just for arguments sake), then they shouldn't wait until the end of the month to intro and release it. They should just put out a notice, do their ads, and have it in the stors.
Then, if they do have some multi purpose event, such as this store opening, or a trade show, or whatever, they can talk it up.
Not the MBP but the upcoming MacBook. Do you believe it should be released with either just a press release or at a major event?
Or do you believe a smaller May event (like potentially the one under discussion) would be a better choice because its ready in May and not July?
Well, if it's ready just a week before something like the opening of a major store, then fine, intro and release it then. a week is no biggie, as long as it's more than just one product.
So your position is that they should launch the MacBook without an event, just a press release and then showcase it again in July? Mmmkay.
Yes, exactly. Get it out there. We all have been waiting for it. The press has been waiting for it. The general population has been waiting for it. When Apple releases it, that will be a big event in itself. There will be the same feeding frenzy they would have had anyway.
If its "just a phone" they screwed it up and the capital is better invested in something else IMHO.
Of course. Unless it's more than just a phone.
Always possible for them to screw it up. I expect them to and I'm happy if they do because it shows risk taking of the variety I like.
My finances won't be happy if they screw it up. Heh!
Do you believe that they would generate more and better coverage with Jobs doing his RDF thing or with just a press release?
That's the whole point. I don't think that Job's "RDF" works on anyone who isn't already attuned to it. i.e. the fans. It doesn't affect me. Does it really affect you?
Do you believe that something like the MacBook deserves that kind of treatment?
You've hit it with that one. The Macbook is a piece of equipment. It doesn't "deserve" anything. People "deserve".
Spindler was the guy that allowed clones and I think around that "open" timeframe you talk about.
Again, the policies as to the product mix has nothing to do with this. Jobs could allow clones, and still be doing things the way he does them.
Hmmm...financial guy...with an engineering degree from Rheinische Fachhochschule that worked marketing for DEC, then Intel and finally Apple Europe? More marketing guy than financial. Of course if you're going to pick on putting business guys in charge of tech companies why do you like Sculley?
He was the financial guy at Apple. The bean counter.
In an interview right after he was promoted, he was asked that getting there after two visionaries, Jobs and Scully, did he think that it took a visionary to run a company like Apple?
His answer was that; "It doesn't take a visionary to run Apple."
He was right. He ran it right into the ground!
The guy that liked low margins and growing market share but wasn't a Michael Dell? The guy that put Spindler in charge as COO in 1990 and essentially lame ducked himself into CTO to watch over his pet projects?
Nothing wrong with Spindler being COO, or CFO. But, anything else was a bad choice.
Uh huh...yes, market share dropped (because of smaller growth) but sales dropped? Lets see...sales just prior to Jobs...600-650K computers per quarter. Sales from the iMac pushed that number to around 900K per quarter until the usual Apple dip.
Either way, that's hardly "sales continued to drop" unless your math treats 700K to 1.4M sales as less than 600K-650K sales.
Apple's sales dropped from about 4 million units a year to less than 3.3 million a year, and except for a short lived bump up, stayed there until 18 months or so ago.
A product is typically more ready when a CEO is willing to take the stage and demo the danged thing than when they are not willing to take the stage and demo the danged thing.
CEOs have little sense of humor when it comes to looking like idiots in front of an audience.
You don't know that.
And about looking like an idiot, you're wrong there as well. Gates looks that way whenever he does a demo, as it hardly ever works right.
Recently While demonstrating the new Origami, the CEO of Samsung, or whoever it is that's producing it, looked like an idiot, as did the other two people who demo'd it after him.
Obviously it bear stating if you seem to think that corporate market share was impacted by the return of Jobs and his sekrit ways.
Apple wasn't doing too well until after the iPod was out for over a year, and they got it on Windows as well. That had a salutary effect on Apple's fortunes. It was luck more than anything else. Jobs said some time ago that they weren't planning on putting in on Windows, but the demand was so great. They weren't planning the iTunes store, but they thought it was a good idea when the iPods took off.
That worked out well
If your business runs on MacOS/OSX and your applications and workflows are built in that environment it is not a trivial decision to move to a different OS. It is no different than transitioning from Windows to something else except that there is an expecation that whatever software you're running has some equivalent in the Windows world for the most part.
In any case, this is hardly a link to anything that suggests that this issue was a significant contributor to lost corporate market share.
As opposed to say Spindler essentially abandoning the enterprise market to concentrate on soho, edu and home markets.
No. It's vastly different. There are massive corporate apps that simply don't run in OS X. There are tens of thousands of in-house apps that don't run on OS X. Those companies and governments can't simply move over because they need these apps. Hardware as well. Back room apps, network apps, etc. A tremendous undertaking.
One of the first things Jobs said when he first came back was that , in response to a question about the enterprise, was that "The enterprise is not our customer." Brilliant!!!
There's no point in mentioning Spindler anymore, because I've already said that he's an idiot. Enough.
If there are numerous articles that suggest that Apple lost significant share because of slow product ramps then it should be easy enough to find one?
Great, find articles on Google if you want to. Half the time you can't find something you read yesterday. You think I'm making it up? That's ridiculous
I did...1Q results for 1999:
"Net sales increased sequentially $154 million or 10% during the first quarter of 1999 as compared to the fourth quarter of 1998. The sequential revenue increase is attributable to a 13% rise in Macintosh unit shipments and incremental net sales from MacOS 8.5 upgrades. The rise in unit sales during the first quarter is attributable to a 21% increase in iMac unit sales compared to the fourth quarter of 1998 and a similar 15% increase in unit shipments of Power Macintosh G3 professional Macintosh systems partially offset by a 17% sequential decline in unit shipments of G3 Powerbooks resulting from the introduction of several new Powerbook models during the fourth quarter of 1998."
From the Fool Year in Review 1998:
"The company's market share had been eroding for years. It slipped again from 5.7% worldwide in 1996 to just 3.6% in 1997, with that number dropping to 2.6% in the December quarter. Its U.S. share dropped from 7.4% in '96 to 4.6% in '97 and 3.3% in the December period. This downward spiral resulted from the successful Wintel partnership that provided more user-friendly, Windows-based PCs that sapped Apple of its main competitive advantage. In response, Apple looked like a deer caught in the headlights: confused and scared.
...
What a difference a year makes. In 1998, Apple's stock price has tripled thanks to a dramatic turnaround that Jobs has produced through a series of material and spiritual transformations.
...
The iMac's success is indicative of the broader turnaround. The company sold 278,000 units in its first six weeks on the market, beating predictions that the company would sell 100,000 to 150,000 units during its fiscal fourth quarter. The iMac was the top selling desktop in superstores for August and September, according to ZD Market Intelligence. Meanwhile, International Data Corp. says Apple is now growing faster than the overall PC market, moving up to 5% of the U.S. market last quarter from 4.4% a year ago."
http://www.fool.com/Features/1998/sp...view_win01.htm
Not quite the story you paint now is it?
The marketshare went up for a while. I did say that there was a bump. But it declined to under 2.8% until a couple of years ago. Since then it has been rising.
Yes, they stumbled in 2000 with the cube. Nor could they sustain the growth if '98 very long. But they recovered and are again beating projections. So the cycle continues. It doesn't look like they have many dogs in the product cycle this go around but you never know...perhaps there is an iTablet in the works and it'll be a real dog.
I hope not. I use PC tablets and think a Mac tablet would hopefully be great but you never know when Apple and Jobs will stumble again. Its a much bigger risk for Apple than Dell (even if Dell took a recent beating and Apple is the current darling).
Tablets are a dog in the marketplace. They are half of 1% of the laptop market, which is about half of the overall market. Not a great area for Apple to get into.
Repeated assertion does not an argument make. Dogs will appear in every product line up. The amount of risk a company is willing to take varies. Apple is apparently conservative. If you'd like to support your case you want to show that a crunched supply (in Jan/Jul no less) represents more long term risk than over building.
The difficuly, as you should know, is that without a control, you will never know. All you can see is the evaluations done by the firms like NPD that do this checking, and interviewing.
Do you suggest that always swinging for the fence is the optimal launch strategy? Because I can likely find sufficient number of case studies of businesses that overbuilt infrastructure and product and ended up dead because they over predicted sales.
I never said that. but that's what Jobs does. He rarely comes out with a quiet product that is major. Even the small products are often given more push than they deserve. Remember iPod socks? That was a joke of a while.
You certainly do not release a product expecting its a dog. On the other hand, a smaller run requires less capital investment minimizing your downside risk. The cost is short term channel shortages.
You're assuming that I'm talking about producing twice as much product. I'm not. Apple always seems to be about 20% or so down from what they need. 20% is not going to break the bank. But, it would satisfy the demand. you apparently don't read these forums when a new product comes out, or you would see the anger whan Apple comes up short, and then starts to lengthen the wait times.
Given that the normal release cycle is post Christmas anyway you have several months to get your house in order if you have hit on your hands before the next Christmas cycle.
It doesn't even have to be a hit. It could simply be a fairly well selling product, like the Mini's, which sell well, but not spectacularly.
Look, I think that we've truely drained this discussion. I'm willing to call a truce, if you are.
Vinea